X Corp Sues Over Twitter Name As Tesla Faces Autopilot Ad Ruling

Elon Musk’s empire is in the news again, this time under legal scrutiny.

X Corp has launched a lawsuit to defend its legacy “Twitter” trademark, while Tesla faces a California regulatory ruling for allegedly misleading consumers about Autopilot and Full Self-Driving systems.

Together, these developments highlight the intensifying convergence of branding, technology, and law in Silicon Valley.
 

TL; DR

 

• X Corp has sued a startup called Operation Bluebird for attempting to register and use the “Twitter” trademark.

• The company is asserting its ongoing rights over the Twitter brand and its legacy assets despite the rebrand to “X.”

• California’s DMV has ruled that Tesla’s Autopilot marketing was misleading, giving the automaker 90 days to amend its advertising or risk suspension of sales.

 

X Corp’s Lawsuit Over The Twitter Brand

X Corp filed a federal lawsuit in Delaware against a social media startup, Operation Bluebird, accusing it of trademark infringement and unfair competition.


The filing alleges that Bluebird sought to exploit residual brand equity from Twitter’s rebrand by applying to register “Twitter” as its own mark and launching a competing service under the name.

Bluebird’s defense is that X Corp “abandoned” the mark when Elon Musk formally rebranded the company to “X” in 2023 and removed the bird logo. The startup has filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to cancel the “Twitter” and “Tweet” trademarks, citing non-use.

In response, X Corp argues that “Twitter” remains an active mark because millions of users continue to access the site via twitter.com, and the word “tweet” persists in popular usage. The Verge corroborated that X has asserted “residual goodwill and continuous commercial activity” as evidence that the trademarks remain enforceable.

X told the court that its Twitter trademark “continues to persist in many ways,” noting millions of users still access the site via twitter.com, and that rebranding does not equal abandonment. The company is seeking damages and an injunction preventing Operation Bluebird from using any brand elements that reference Twitter.

Legal experts quoted by Reuters and Bloomberg Law note that the dispute could set a precedent for legacy trademarks following rebrands. Under U.S. law, abandonment requires “non-use and intent not to resume use.”

Trademark experts say proving abandonment is historically difficult under U.S. law, which requires clear non-use and intent not to resume using a mark, conditions X disputes.

In parallel with the legal case, X Corp recently updated its Terms of Service.
 

Updated Terms And Brand Strategy

X Corp’s Terms of Service states to explicitly assert continued ownership of Twitter’s intellectual property.

While the company did not comment publicly on the timing, The Verge noted that the update aligns with Musk’s efforts to consolidate all prior trademarks and user assets under X Holdings.

Analysts interpret the move as an effort to preempt any further challenges to the legacy of Twitter.

While all of this is under scrutiny for X-Corp, another company of Elon Musk is in the news for a legal issue.
 

Tesla Ordered To Amend Autopilot And Full Self-Driving Advertising

Meanwhile, California’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has ruled Tesla’s marketing of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) systems “deceptive and misleading”.


The administrative judge found that Tesla’s terminology “creates a reasonable but false impression that vehicles are fully autonomous,” despite disclaimers requiring driver supervision.

The DMV’s enforcement order gives Tesla 90 days to modify its advertising and promotional content; otherwise, the company could face a temporary suspension of dealer licenses and sales operations in California, its largest U.S. market.

Tesla has rejected the ruling’s characterization. “We disagree with the decision and remain committed to driver transparency and safety,” a company spokesperson told the WSJ. “Autopilot and FSD are designed to assist drivers, not replace them.”

However, regulators note that the company’s advertising has consistently blurred the distinction between driver-assist and autonomous capabilities. The San Francisco Chronicle and SFGate report that the DMV investigation, initially opened in 2022, found repeated instances where Tesla’s language “materially misrepresented the system’s limitations”.

The ruling builds on prior news coverage, noting Tesla’s earlier attempts to dismiss false advertising claims and confirming regulators’ increasing willingness to challenge corporate AI-related marketing.
   

Broader Industry Implications

The twin legal battles reflect a pivotal moment for Elon Musk’s corporate network.

For X Corp, the dispute reinforces that brand identity remains a long-term strategic asset, even after a complete rebrand.

For Tesla, the case signals that regulators are drawing sharper boundaries around AI-driven marketing, particularly where consumer safety and perception intersect with innovation.

Legal observers say both developments underscore how courts and regulators are scrutinizing tech branding and consumer claims more tightly than in past years.

As these cases advance through the courts and regulatory channels, they will likely influence how technology companies balance reinvention with responsibility and how far the law can and how far the law can stretch to accommodate innovation.