The devil is in the detail. The linked mark

'consists of a stylized letter "X". The left side of the "X" is white and the right side of the "X" is blue. The shaded square carrier represents background only and is not a part of the mark.'

No mortal man would have been allowed to register a trade mark this similar. I tried.

I’m not wading into issues of trademark disputes but I think your description really captures something here.

That mark absolutely doesn’t say “X” to me. If I saw that with absolutely no context, I would think it’s another generic brand logo with nothing unique or memorable about it except how like every other logo it looks.

Just to be clear, that's not my description. It's filed description on the trade mark.

I like the new "Xitter" styling, because in Mandarin the phoneme "xi" is pronounced like "shi".

that's probably his plan. it's a 44bn shitpost.

Is this Trademark for "X" the text too, or just the "X" logo shown on USPTO? The logo doesn't look like Elon's logo at all (that said, I don't think that would stop him from his rebranding shenanigans either way)

Mark is not in actual use, right? So no issues for Twixter. If Meta had been clever, and it's not like Elon hasn't been telegraphing this for at least six month, they would have launched Threads with that mark, cockblocking Elon for massive damage...

I think this whole thing is getting out of hand, why and who would allow a company to own an everyday word or letter!? Like apple, X, etc., next 10years from now people won’t be able to communicate without being sued.

It's a kinda meh logo. They could do better. Heck, I could do better.

Ford owns several single letter trademarks for the purpose of selling cars. This doesn't prevent people from using the letters for other purposes.

Including the trademark for "Model E", which is why we have the Tesla "Model 3" and S3XY.

Its not a letter, its a specific logo where both the shape and color pattern are specific.

OTOH, you can trademark a color, so...

They did not trademark the letter. They trademark the styled blue/white >< logo.

Sure, but I'll bet you that in a year or two a number of other websites with a differently styled X logo are going to get letters threatening them for having "confusingly similar" stylized X logos. Heck, "the same sequence of characters in a differently stylized font" is an example of something that fails the likelihood of confusion test on the USPTO website: https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search/likelihood-confusion

But then we get into the "relatedness of goods and services" test. What is X trademarking here? Well, according to the application, it covers everything in the mother of all run on sentences, including "Computer software for...displaying...video."

So, then, is this logo likely to be confused with any other website that displays videos and has an X for a logo? Because there are a whole bunch of (mostly porn) websites that would seem to be covered.

But for what it's worth, trademark seems to be a very nuanced and fact-specific area of law, and I'm a layman looking at USPTO websites, so I'm entirely out of my element here and somebody can hopefully correct me.

When people asked for the government to regulate intellectual property. But I guess crying about capitalism is easier

We care more about protecting capital than people.

Trademarks are statism, not capitalism

just kick his ass and take it ;p

Maybe you're looking at the wrong page. It clearly says the owner is "Meta Platforms".