Status report
Get it in writing
The official USPTO status record for TOKYO 1964, serial 79321026, as a dated PDF. One price, one document, delivered in about a minute.
INSTANT DELIVERY
Trademark Status Report
$7.99
The USPTO's own status record for this mark, on one dated page.
- Current status with a plain-English verdict
- Owner, classes, filing basis, and every key date
- The mark as it appears on the federal record
- Every prosecution event, filing to today
- Source-cited with the exact retrieval date
Built from the USPTO's TSDR record. Assignment chain of title and TTAB proceeding files sit in separate USPTO systems and are not included.
Preview
◆ TRADEMARKCHECKER.AITRADEMARK STATUS REPORT
TOKYO 1964Serial 79321026 · Principal Register
Pending · Under Examination
Owner: Comité International Olympique
Class 009 - Electrical & Scientific Apparatus
Class 014 -
Class 016 - Paper Goods & Printed Matter
Class 018 -
Class 021 -
Class 024 -
Class 025 - Clothing
Class 028 -
Class 035 - Advertising & Business
Class 038 - Communication Services
Class 041 - Education & Entertainment
Filed Mar 10, 2021
The record shows that “TOKYO 1964” is a pending application on the Principal Register, owned by the Comité International Olympique, a Swiss association. The mark covers a wide range of goods and services, including electrical and scientific apparatus, precious‑metal jewelry, paper goods, textiles, clothing, sporting articles, advertising and business services, communication services, and education and entertainment services. A similar name would raise the closest concern in any of those areas, especially where the goods or services overlap with the listed classes. This record does not give the owner control over every use of the wording; it only reflects the scope shown in the classes. The prosecution history shows a refusal in 2021, followed by a series of suspension checks and correspondence, with the latest status update on May 26 2026 that the case remains suspended. No enforcement actions appear in the supplied history. For someone considering a similar name, the risk is that the mark’s broad coverage could create a meaningful concern in many related fields.
Full event history, owner details, and verdict inside.
The way I'd use it, honestly, is as the thing you attach when a bank, a marketplace, or a co-founder asks "are we clear on the name". It answers in one page.