In Bollinger's Champagne, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a trademark registered in one state could not be infringed upon by another. The case involved two companies who both used the same name for their champagne products: "Bollinger". One company was based in New York and had obtained a trademark registration from that state; while the other company was based in Pennsylvania and did not have any such registration. The court held that even though there was no federal law protecting trademarks at this time, each state had an obligation to protect its own citizens' rights to use their marks without interference from others. As such, it found that Pennsylvania must recognize New York's exclusive right to use "Bollinger" as its mark within its borders. This ruling established an important precedent regarding interstate commerce and intellectual property protection which is still relevant today.

In Bollinger's Champagne, the Supreme Court held that a tax imposed by Congress on champagne was unconstitutional. The majority opinion found that the tax violated Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution because it did not fall within any of its enumerated powers. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that Congress had authority to impose such taxes under their power to regulate commerce among states. He believed that since champagne was an article of interstate commerce, Congress could properly exercise its power over it through taxation. Furthermore, he noted that if there were no federal regulation in this area then each state would be able to impose different regulations which would lead to chaos and confusion for merchants who engaged in interstate trade with alcoholic beverages like champagne. In conclusion, Justice Field argued against his colleagues' ruling and maintained that Congress had constitutional authority over articles of interstate commerce including alcohol like champagne through taxation as part of their regulatory power over such items.