The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a legal claim against the NFL’s New Orleans Saints from a man who says he is the “direct descendant of the Kings of France” over the trademark of the fleur-de-lis symbol on Monday. A court document shows Michel J. Messier claimed that he and his family own “intellectual property rights to the Fleur de Lys, Orleans and Saints marks” and sought to cancel the NFL franchise’s patent for the symbols. However, the court ruled that his claim has no evidence, suggesting that neither Messier nor his family currently use the fleur-de-lis in any commercial capacity to merit consideration. When contacted by CNN Sports, Messier said that he plans to file a further cancelation appeal with the US Supreme Court by May 1, “including but not limited to the commercial value of my family’s approximately 1,500 years of continuing business interests.” Messier told CNN that he will be filing for Name, Image and Likeness claims for the fleur-de-lis as well as “legally pursuing” the Saints’ alleged characterization of him as a “‘mere intermeddler’ in my (our) own family business.” CNN has reached out to the Saints’ legal representative for comment. The Saints were granted a trademark by the US Patent and Trademark Office in 1974 to use a stylized fleur-de-lis symbol having become a professional NFL team in 1967. Since then, the symbol – a three-petaled flower which has become an emblem of the city of New Orleans – has been closely associated with the Louisiana-based team and is displayed on players’ helmets. The fleur-de-lis has long been associated with the French royalty, its origins going back almost 1,000 years. Messier’s initial petition to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board was dismissed in June 2024, a ruling he later appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Messier claims the fleur-de-lis symbol was used by his family for “several centuries,” according to court documents. But the federal court agreed with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that Messier’s claim failed to “allege any commercial interests in the mark, or that (Messier) owns or conducts any business under the mark, and thus he cannot allege entitlement,” per the court document. The ruling concluded that the case had been dismissed, saying: “As Mr. Messier does not have standing, we lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of his appeal.”
New Orleans Saints win lawsuit over fleur-de-lis trademark filed by ‘direct descendant of the Kings of France’
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Federal Appeals Court Dismisses Trademark Lawsuit Against New Orleans Saints"
CNN
8.0
TruthLens AI Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has dismissed a trademark lawsuit filed against the New Orleans Saints by Michel J. Messier, who claims to be a direct descendant of the Kings of France. Messier alleged that he and his family hold intellectual property rights to the fleur-de-lis symbol, which is prominently associated with the NFL team. His legal claim sought to cancel the Saints' trademark, arguing that the family has historical ties to the symbol, which has been used for centuries. However, the court ruled that Messier's claims lacked substantial evidence, noting that neither he nor his family currently utilizes the fleur-de-lis in any commercial capacity, thereby failing to meet the necessary legal standards for standing in the case. The court emphasized that without evidence of commercial usage, Messier could not claim any entitlement to the trademark, leading to the dismissal of the case.
Following the dismissal, Messier indicated his intention to escalate the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court by May 1, stating plans to pursue further claims related to the commercial value of his family's historical interests. He expressed his determination to challenge the characterization of his claims as that of a 'mere intermeddler' in his family's business affairs. The fleur-de-lis symbol, which has deep historical roots dating back nearly 1,000 years, has been a significant emblem for the city of New Orleans and the Saints since the team was established in 1967. The Saints secured their trademark rights from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1974, and the symbol has since been an integral part of the team's identity, prominently displayed on players' helmets. The court's ruling aligns with a previous decision made by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, reinforcing the notion that Messier's claims do not demonstrate any legitimate commercial interests or ownership of the mark.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the fleur-de-lis trademark associated with the New Orleans Saints brings to light various layers of legal and cultural significance. The case, initiated by Michel J. Messier, who claims to be a direct descendant of French royalty, raises intriguing questions about intellectual property and cultural heritage.
Legal Context of the Ruling
Messier's claim revolved around his assertion that his family holds intellectual property rights to the fleur-de-lis symbol, which has a long-standing association with French royalty and the city of New Orleans. The court's dismissal of his claim indicates a lack of evidence supporting his family's commercial use of the symbol. This ruling underscores the legal principle that for trademark claims to be valid, there must be demonstrable commercial use of the mark in question. This aspect of the case highlights the complexities of trademark law, particularly in cases involving historical symbols that transcend national and cultural boundaries.
Cultural Implications
The fleur-de-lis has become emblematic of New Orleans, representing not only the city's French heritage but also its unique cultural identity. The Saints' use of this symbol connects the team to the city's history and its community. Messier's claim, therefore, can be seen as an attempt to reclaim a part of that heritage, albeit through a legal lens. The ruling may resonate with individuals who value the intersection of culture and commercial identity, potentially leading to discussions about who has the right to use cultural symbols and under what circumstances.
Public Perception and Media Narrative
The article presents Messier as a figure attempting to assert rights over a significant cultural symbol, which may evoke sympathy for his cause among certain audiences. However, the court's ruling also casts doubt on the legitimacy of his claims, framing him as an "intermeddler" in a matter that may not substantively involve him or his family. The way this narrative is structured could influence public opinion, potentially swaying readers to view the Saints favorably while discrediting Messier's claims.
Potential Consequences and Future Actions
Messier's intention to appeal to the US Supreme Court suggests that this legal battle may not be over. Should the Supreme Court take up the case, it could set a significant precedent regarding the rights to historical symbols used in commercial contexts. This outcome could have broader implications for how trademarks are handled in the United States, particularly for symbols tied to cultural heritage.
Implications for Stakeholders
The ruling and subsequent appeal could impact various stakeholders, including the NFL, the Saints, and other teams using culturally significant symbols. For investors and fans, the ongoing legal drama might affect the brand image of the Saints and, by extension, the NFL as a whole. Additionally, businesses that utilize similar cultural symbols may find themselves scrutinized in light of this case.
Connection to Broader Trends
This case reflects ongoing conversations about cultural appropriation, heritage rights, and the commercialization of cultural symbols. In a globalized world, these issues are increasingly relevant as different groups navigate the complexities of cultural ownership. The implications of this case could resonate beyond sports and into broader societal discussions about identity and representation.
The reliability of the article seems solid, as it references official court documents and quotes from involved parties. However, the framing of the narrative could be seen as leaning towards sensationalism, especially in how it presents Messier's claims and the Saints’ defense. The article does not appear to manipulate facts but rather highlights a legal dispute with potential cultural ramifications.