Case Information
*1 Before M OORE , Chief Judge , P ROST and S TARK , Circuit
Judges . P ER C URIAM . 2 MESSIER v. NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA SAINTS , LLC
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 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). 4 MESSIER v. NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA SAINTS , LLC 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 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.
NOTES
[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.