Michel J. Messier v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MICHEL J. MESSIER,
Appellant
v.
NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA SAINTS, LLC,
Appellee
______________________
2024-2271
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.
92083143.
______________________
Decided: April 14, 2025
______________________
MICHEL J. MESSIER, Rutland, VT, pro se.
J ULIE S. G OLDEMBERG, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Philadelphia, PA, for appellee.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, P ROST and STARK, Circuit
Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 24-2271 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 04/14/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

MESSIER v. NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA SAINTS, LLC 2
Michel Messier appeals the decision of the Trademark
Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) dismissing his petition to
cancel the registered fleur-de-lis design mark of the New
Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC (“Saints”). Because Mr.
Messier lacks standing to bring this appeal, we dismiss.
I
The Saints are a professional American football team
based in New Orleans, Louisiana. The Saints entered the
National Football League in 1967 and have, continuously
since that time, used a fleur-de-lis service mark. In 1974,
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Trademark Of-
fice”) granted the Saints Registration No. 992,210, a styl-
ized fleur-de-lis symbol for use in connection with
“entertainment services in the form of professional football
games and exhibitions.” S.A. 574.1
In August 2023, Mr. Messier filed a petition for cancel-
lation of the Saints No. 992,210 fleur-de-lis service mark
(“Saints Mark”). In his petition, Mr. Messier asserted that
he is a “direct descendant of the Kings of France (Scotland,
Aragon, and Castille)” and that he and his family own “in-
tellectual property rights to the Fleur de Lys, Orleans and
Saints marks.” S.A. 20. Mr. Messier’s petition contains no
claim that he or his family currently use any fleur-de-lis
1 “S.A.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed by
the Saints, ECF No. 17.
The Saints own other registered marks, including
Registration Nos. 844,767 (“New Orleans Saints”), 850,006
(“Saints”), 1,079,540 (“Saints”), and 992,219 (fleur-de-lis).
Although Mr. Messier petitioned for cancellation of some of
these other marks, the Board instituted a proceeding only
with respect to No. 992,210, which is the only mark at issue
in this appeal.
Case: 24-2271 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 04/14/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

MESSIER v. NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA SAINTS, LLC 3
marks in commerce or receive any revenues, for instance
through licensing, in connection with any mark.
In January 2024, the Board granted the Saints’ motion
to dismiss Mr. Messier’s cancellation petition. The Board
agreed with the Saints that, in order to maintain a cancel-
lation action pursuant to Sections 13 and 14 of the Trade-
mark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1063, 1064, Mr. Messier needed to
allege a commercial interest in the registered mark or a
reasonable belief in damage from the mark’s continued reg-
istration, which he had failed to do. The Board granted Mr.
Messier leave to file an amended petition, which he did in
February 2024. In June 2024, the Board granted the
Saints’ renewed motion to dismiss, agreeing with the
Saints that the amended petition did not correct the defects
it had identified in the original petition. In particular, the
Board concluded that the amended petition failed to “allege
any commercial interests in the mark, or that [Mr. Messier]
owns or conducts any business under the mark, and thus
he cannot allege entitlement” to seek to cancel the Saints
Mark. S.A. 5. Accordingly, the Board dismissed
Mr. Messier’s amended cancellation petition with preju-
dice.
Mr. Messier timely appealed. Our jurisdiction over the
appeal arises from 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B), although we
conclude, as explained below, that we lack jurisdiction due
to Mr. Messier’s lack of standing.
II
“[A]lthough Article III standing is not necessarily a re-
quirement to appear before an administrative agency, once
a party seeks review in a federal court, the constitutional
requirement that it have standing kicks in.” Consumer
Watchdog v. Wis. Alumni Rsch. Found., 753 F.3d 1258,
1261 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). Mr. Messier, as the
party seeking appellate review, has the burden to show he
has Article III standing. See Brooklyn Brewery Corp.
v. Brooklyn Brew Shop, 17 F.4th 129, 138 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Case: 24-2271 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 04/14/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

MESSIER v. NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA SAINTS, LLC 4
In particular, Mr. Messier must demonstrate “(1) an actual
or imminent injury-in-fact that is concrete and particular-
ized; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the
conduct complained of; and (3) likely redressability by a fa-
vorable decision.” Starr Int’l Co. v. United States, 856 F.3d
953, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)) (cleaned up).
Mr. Messier has failed to meet his burden, at least be-
cause he has failed to allege he is injured by the Saints
Mark. To satisfy the injury requirement for Article III
standing, the alleged injury “must be more than a general
grievance or abstract harm.” Consumer Watchdog, 753
F.3d at 1261 (internal citations omitted). In seeking spe-
cifically to cancel the Saints Mark, Mr. Messier “must
demonstrate a concrete and particularized risk of interfer-
ence with the rights that flow to [him] from registration of
[his] own mark, or some other Article III injury.” Brooklyn
Brewery, 17 F.4th at 138-39. This might be shown, for ex-
ample, by alleging that Mr. Messier and the Saints “com-
pete in the same line of business and failure to cancel” the
Saints mark “would be likely to cause” Mr. Messier “com-
petitive injury.” Id. at 139.
The amended petition is devoid of such allegations.
Mr. Messier has not alleged that he or his family make,
offer for sale, or sell any products or services using a fleur-
de-lis design. Nor has he alleged that he is, in any manner,
involved in commercial “entertainment services,” in con-
nection with football or any other form of commerce where
he uses a fleur-de-lis design. Thus, Mr. Messier has failed
to “identify any alleged injury aside from the Board deny-
ing . . . the particular outcome . . . desired,” the cancella-
tion of the Saints Mark, which “is insufficient to confer
standing.” Consumer Watchdog, 753 F.3d at 1261.
Given Mr. Messier’s omissions, even if we take as true
what he does allege, whether in his amended petition (as
we must) or his briefs (which we are not required to do), he
Case: 24-2271 Document: 32 Page: 4 Filed: 04/14/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

MESSIER v. NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA SAINTS, LLC 5
has not met his burden to show a concrete and particular-
ized injury sufficient to have standing to press this appeal.
His references to the Saints Mark being confusingly simi-
lar to his family’s private use of fleur-de-lis designs, now
and for several centuries, S.A. 231-32, 240-389; or the
“SAINT Louis Cathedral’s home [in] New Orleans, Louisi-
ana” and its gift shop that “sells fleur de Lis adorned goods
to preserve the Cathedral,” S.A. 215, 230; and his specula-
tion that in the future he may license fleur-de-lis marks,
S.A. 20, are, at best, allegations of “hypothetical” or “future
possible injury,” which are insufficient to confer Article III
standing. Brooklyn Brewery, 17 F.4th at 139.
As Mr. Messier does not have standing, we lack juris-
diction to consider the merits of his appeal. Accordingly,
we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
The parties shall each bear their own costs.
Case: 24-2271 Document: 32 Page: 5 Filed: 04/14/2025

-- 5 of 5 --