CAFC Upholds TTAB Dismissal of "fleur-de-lis" Cancellation Petition Due to Lack of Standing

Michel J. Messier of Rutland, Vermont, petitioned to cancel a registration for the mark shown below, owned by the New Orleans Saints football team, for "entertainment services in the form of professional football games and exhibitions." Mr. Messier alleged that he is a "direct descendant of the Kings of France (Scotland, Aragon, and Castille)” and that he and his family own “intellectual property rights to the Fleur de Lys, Orleans and Saints marks." Not good enough, said the CAFC. Michel J. Messier v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC, Appeal No. 2024-2271 (April 14, 2025) [not precedential].

Petitioner Messier made no claim that he or his family currently use any fleur-de-lis marks in commerce or receive any revenues (e.g., from licensing) in connection with any mark. The Board concluded that the petition for cancellation (as amended) failed to "allege any commercial interests in the mark, or that [Mr. Messier] owns or conducts any business under the mark."

[A]lthough Article III standing is not necessarily a requirement to appear before an administrative agency, once a party seeks review in a federal court, the constitutional requirement that it have standing kicks in.” * * * Mr. Messier, as the party seeking appellate review, has the burden to show he has Article III standing. *** In particular, Mr. Messier must demonstrate "(1) an actual or imminent injury-in-fact that is concrete and particularized; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) likely redressability by a favorable decision." (citations omitted).

Petitioner Messier did not allege that he or his family make, offer for sale, or sell any products or services using a fleur-de-lis design, nor that he is involved in "football entertainment services." Thus he failed to "identify any alleged injury aside from the Board denying . . . the particular outcome . . . desired,” the cancellation of the Saints Mark, which “is insufficient to confer standing."

His references to the Saints Mark being confusingly similar to his family’s private use of fleur-de-lis designs, now and for several centuries, or the "SAINT Louis Cathedral’s home [in] New Orleans, Louisiana” and its gift shop that “sells fleur de Lis adorned goods to preserve the Cathedral,” and his speculation that in the future he may license fleur-de-lis marks, are, at best, allegations of “hypothetical” or “future possible injury,” which are insufficient to confer Article III standing.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: If a party is appealing from a TTAB decision holding that the party lacks "entitlement to a statutory cause of action," why does the CAFC apply the Article III test for standing? Why does the party have to prove some commercial damage? BTW: what does this decision portend for the RAPUNZEL appeal currently awaiting the CAFC's decision on standing?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.