On April 14, 2025, the Federal Circuit dismissed Michel Messier’s appeal challenging the registered fleur-de-lis trademark of the National Football League’s New Orleans Saints.[1] Messier, claiming descent from European royalty, argued his family holds intellectual property rights to the fleur-de-lis, especially in association with “Orleans” and “Saints.” The court, however, found that trademark rights in the U.S. hinge on commercial use, not personal heritage, and ruled that Messier lacked Article III standing.
Background
Michel J. Messier, appearing pro se, sought to cancel the New Orleans Saints’ longstanding federal trademark for a stylized fleur-de-lis. Messier’s argument was unconventional: he asserted a familial connection rather than any commercial use, not alleging business interest or claims of confusion, dilution, or lost revenue. Messier instead contended that his family’s common law rights predated the NFL Saint’s rights by roughly 250 years domestically and 1,450 years internationally.
“I am a direct descendant of the Kings of France (Scotland, Aragon, and Castille), including but not limited to Philippe Auguste II, and Louis I through Louis VIII. Our Family Crest is the Fleur-de-Lys. John of Orleans, Jean de Dunois my great…uncle applied the fleur de lys as a descendant as well. I am also a direct descendant of the Orleans Family.”[2]
Messier further cited historical figures such as Saint Clotilde and Clovis, claiming his ancestors first used the design around 500 AD. He also referenced the Order of Saint Louis, worn by Iberville and Bienville in New Orleans, as evidence of his family’s historical use of the symbol in the region.[3] Despite these historical assertions, Messier did not claim to use the mark in commerce.
The Saints, founded in 1967, have used the fleur-de-lis since their inception. In 1974, they registered a federal trademark for the stylized fleur-de-lis in connection with “entertainment services in the form of professional football games and exhibitions.”[4] Nevertheless, Messier claimed that the Saints had publicly acknowledged the use of the crest of Louis XIV, his alleged ancestor, in their design.[5]
Messier also alleged that the Saints had conceded they did not have exclusive rights to the fleur-de-lis, during the “Who Dat” controversy before the team’s first Super Bowl appearance.[6] In February 2010, Louisiana’s Attorney General Buddy Caldwell resolved a dispute between local merchants and the NFL over the use of the phrase “Who Dat” with the fleur-de-lis symbol. The NFL had sent cease-and-desist letters to T-shirt makers, claiming trademark infringement. However, Caldwell clarified that shops could sell “Who Dat” shirts with the fleur-de-lis, as long as they didn’t falsely claim affiliation with the Saints or NFL. The NFL stated they only objected to merchandise that presented itself as official Saints gear.[7] The controversy sparked backlash in Louisiana, with many arguing that the phrase and symbol predated the Saints. “How can they put a trademark on something that’s been around for 150 years?” said Robert Lauricella, a 50-year-old oil field sales representative from the area.[8] This, from the viewpoint of Messier, is an admission to the public that the Saints do not have exclusive rights to the fleur-de-lis design.
TTAB Proceedings
Despite these historical claims, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) dismissed Messier’s petition. To bring a cancellation action before the TTAB under Sections 13 and 14 of the Lanham Act, a petitioner must demonstrate (1) an interest falling within the zone of interests protected by the statute, and (2) a reasonable belief of damage proximately caused by the registration.[9] This “entitlement to a statutory cause of action” serves as a threshold requirement. Although this threshold is relatively low, it requires more than a mere personal interest; the petitioner must have a “real interest” in the proceedings, typically rooted in commercial harm or competitive injury, and “not [be] a mere intermeddler.”[10]
Messier claimed the fleur-de-lis is emblematic of his family’s contributions to the region’s history. He claims that the symbol holds historical significance, suggesting that the Saints’ trademark interfered with his family’s legacy. Specifically, although he alleges that his ancestors “are recorded in history with the application of our family crest,” this merely creates a personal, non-commercial interest in the design based on the alleged actions of his presumed family “applying” the design hundreds of years ago.[11] Without a real commercial interest or a reasonable belief of damage, Messier could not satisfy the statutory threshold to maintain a cancellation action before the TTAB.
Federal Circuit’s Holding
The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s dismissal, finding that Messier lacked Article III standing. Under the Lanham Act, a party seeking cancellation before the TTAB must only show a belief in likely damage, but federal courts apply the stricter Lujan standard. To meet this stricter Article III standing, a petitioner must demonstrate (1) an injury-in-fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) a causal link between the injury and the conduct challenged; and (3) a likelihood that a favorable ruling will redress the injury.[12] Here, Messier failed at the first step as he could not show any actual or imminent harm resulting from the Saints’ continued registration of the mark. The court reiterated that standing demands more than ideological concerns but requires a legally cognizable injury tied to commercial interests.[13]
Messier invoked a 1989 Paris Court of Appeals decision holding that, since the French throne ended in 1830, the “Azure three fleur-de-lys” arms are a private family crest and thus his family’s property.[14] The Federal Circuit, however, found that–even accepting all of Messier’s allegations, including his historical private use of fleur-de-lis designs, the purported confusion with the Saints’ mark, the sale of fleur-de-lis goods at Saint Louis Cathedral’s gift shop, and his speculative future licensing plans–he failed to demonstrate any concrete, particularized injury.[15] Such “hypothetical” or “future possible” harms are insufficient under the Lujan standard to confer Article III standing, depriving the court of jurisdiction over his appeal.[16]
Why the Argument Was Compelling
Messier’s challenge reveals a tension between historical symbolism and modern trademark law. The fleur-de-lis carries centuries of French royal, Catholic, and regional significance, especially in Louisiana, where it is adopted as a state emblem.[17] Messier’s bid to reclaim this familial emblem raises interesting questions: Should cultural or ancestral symbols be commercially owned or trademarked? Should heritage symbols be treated as property, or must they conform to trademark rules like first use, distinctiveness, and consumer recognition?
With Messier’s procedural defeat, the Saints’ fleur-de-lis remains protectable so long as it functions as a source identifier. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(b), any mark that “consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia” of a state or municipality, or any simulation thereof, is categorically unregistrable. This reinforces the idea that certain symbols, by virtue of their status as official insignia, are beyond private appropriation.[18] Louisiana law complicates this by designating the fleur-de-lis as an official state symbol.[19] While this would seem to place the mark within § 2(b)’s prohibition, the Saints have successfully registered a stylized version that functions as a source identifier. TTAB precedent permits this when the design is sufficiently transformed to avoid being a prohibited simulation.[20]
Unlike the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act’s explicit grandfathering of pre-1950 “Olympic” uses, § 2(b) offers no accommodation for longstanding community symbols.[21] As a result, the law forces a binary choice where a symbol is a government insignia and unregistrable or it is subject to the usual distinctiveness inquiry, even if its cultural significance predates commercial use. This leaves no room for a third possibility, where certain symbols–like the fleur-de-lis–can serve as important trademarks for a business’s brand, and while not legally recognized as official emblems, they may hold such deep cultural significance and integral to a community’s identity that granting exclusive ownership could raise concerns about cultural appropriation and restrict access to these shared heritage symbols.
Nevertheless, the fleur-de-lis is not the insignia of any current foreign nation, despite its historical ties to France. Nor is it unique to the Saints. The New Orleans Pelicans use a “bird-de-lis” logo combining a pelican with the fleur-de-lis, and Louisville’s soccer teams, Racing Louisville FC and Louisville City FC, feature the symbol to honor the city’s French heritage and namesake, King Louis XVI.[22] It’s a fine line that places the Saints’ registrations at the edge: is their stylized fleur-de-lis, without any wordmark, distinct enough from the traditional civic emblem? To fortify their claim, the Saints have secured multiple overlapping federal registrations: the original 1974 mark for professional football services; a 2007 mark covering merchandise like helmets, jewelry, and collectibles; and a 2013 mark for digital and live entertainment services.[23] By registering multiple fleur-de-lis marks across various goods and services, the Saints may have overreached compared to other teams who have used more distinctive transformations of the symbol.
Though Messier’s argument ultimately failed, it highlights trademark law’s limits. Trademarks are designed to protect brands and inform consumers, but it cannot address disputes rooted in cultural or ancestral values. This narrow focus works for typical commercial logos but leaves no recourse for individuals that view certain symbols as sacred or historic. Messier’s royal lineage was an interesting narrative, but trademark law cares about commerce–not crowns.
Katelyn Kohler is a third-year law student at Suffolk University in Boston, specializing in Sports & Entertainment, Intellectual Property, and Labor & Employment Law. She holds dual degrees from Ithaca College in Business Administration: Sports Management and Legal Studies.
[1] See generally Messier v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC, No. 2024-2271, (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2025) (nonprecedential).
[2] See Messier v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints, L.L.C., Cancellation No. 92083143, at 12-13 (TTAB Jan. 26, 2024) (discussing Messier’s royal claim).
[3] See Letter of Appellant, Messier v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC, No. 2024-2271, at 3-5 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2025) (denoting Messier’s claims of mark’s historical significance).
[4] See Registration No. 992210 (granting Saint’s original fleur-de-lis trademark).
[5] See Letter of Appellant, supra note 2, at 2.
[6] See Letter of Appellant, supra note 2, at 2-3; see also Louisiana attorney general settle ‘Who Dat’ misunderstanding, NFL (Feb. 1, 2010), https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-louisiana-attorney-general-settle-who-dat-misunderstanding; NFL, Saints Fans Dispute Ownership of ‘Who Dat’, ESPN (Jan. 30, 2010), https://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=4871697.
[7] See Louisiana attorney general settle ‘Who Dat’ misunderstanding, supra note 6.
[8] NFL, Saints Fans Dispute Ownership of ‘Who Dat’, supra note 6 (quoting resident).
[9] See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1063, 1064; Messier v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints, L.L.C., Cancellation No. 92083143, at 9-12 (TTAB Jan. 26, 2024) (discussing petitioner’s entitlement to a statutory cause of action under the Lanham Act); see also Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298, 2020 USPQ2d 11277, *4 (Fed. Cir. 2020)(requiring reasonable belief of damage proximately caused by the registration of a mark).
[10] Messier, Cancellation No. 92083143, at 11-12 (explaining low threshold for proving entitlement but must show a real interest in matter (citing Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Bio-Chek LLC, 90 USPQ2d 1112, 1117 n.8 (TTAB 2009))).
[11] See Messier, Cancellation No. 92083143, at 12-13 (discussing Messier’s non-commercial interests in matter).
[12] See Messier v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC, No. 2024-2271, at 3-4 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2025) (nonprecedential);Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)(articulating Article III standing).
[13] See Messier, No. 2024-2271, at 4; see also Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, 753 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
[14] See Letter of Appellant, supra note 2, at 4.
[15] See Messier, No. 2024-2271, at 4-5 (“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 has not met his burden to show a concrete and particularized injury sufficient.”).
[16] See id. at 5.
[17] See LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 49:170.16 (2024) (“The fleur-de-lis shall be an official state symbol.”).
[18] See 15 U.S.C. § 1052(b) (prohibiting registration of marks consisting of state insignia); see also In re Gorham Mfg. Co., 41 App. D.C. 263 (1913) (denying registration of a mark resembling the official hallmark of the Birmingham Assay Office under the Trademark Act of 1905); Bangkok Bangkok Import & Export Inc. v. Jamtan African Am. Mkt. Corp., No. 15-CV-81245 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2016) (holding a trademark incorporating the former flag of Laos was unregistrable under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(b)).
[19] See LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 49:170.16 (2024) (designating fleur-de-lis as the official state symbol and authorizing its use on official state documents).
[20] See 8 Gilson on Trademarks 1204 (2025); see also In re Alabama Tourism Dep’t, 2020 USPQ2d 10485, at *2 (TTAB 2020) (holding mark incorporating elements of the U.S. flag was unregistrable because it was not sufficiently altered to create distinct commercial impression); In re Family Emergency Room LLC, 121 USPQ2d 1886, 1889 (TTAB 2017) (finding a design resembling Swiss flag was prohibited simulation due to insufficient alteration).
[21] Compare Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C. § 220506, with 15 U.S.C. § 1052(b) (distinguishing statutory exclusive rights of Olympic emblems with statutory bar of state insignia).
[22] See Toney Blare, Bird De Lis, SLAM (Jan. 25, 2013), https://www.slamonline.com/nba/bird-de-lis/ (describing the NBA team rebranding as the Pelicans and its symbolic connection to Louisiana); LouCity Unveils 2025 Third Kit Inspired by Historic Louisville Flag, LouCity Communs. (May 9, 2025, 10:00 AM), https://www.loucity.com/news/2025/05/09/loucity-unveils-2025-third-kit-inspired-by-historic-louisville-flag/ (announcing Louisville City FC’s new “1778 Kit” honoring the city’s historic flag and commemorating its founding year).
[23] See Registration No. 992210; Registration No. 3210572; Registration No. 4380074.
