In the case of Endicott Johnson Corporation v. Encyclopedia Press, Inc., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Encyclopedia Press, Inc. The dispute arose when Endicott Johnson Corporation claimed that their trademark rights were violated by Encyclopedia Press through a publication that used their company name without permission. However, the court found no evidence to support this claim as there was no indication that consumers would be misled or confused into thinking that Endicott Johnson had endorsed or was associated with the encyclopedia's content. Furthermore, it was determined that using a company’s name for descriptive purposes is not an infringement on trademark rights if it does not lead to public confusion about product origin or endorsement. Therefore, since there wasn't any intent to deceive nor any likelihood of consumer confusion demonstrated by Encyclopedia Press' use of Endicott's name in its factual description within its publication, the court held such usage did not constitute trademark infringement.

In the dissenting opinion for Endicott Johnson Corporation v. Encyclopedia Press, Inc., Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of copyright law and its purpose. He contended that copyright protection is not meant to protect facts or ideas but rather their unique expression or arrangement by an author. In this case, he believed that while the plaintiff had indeed copied factual information from the defendant's encyclopedia, they did so without copying any original text verbatim and thus did not infringe upon any copyright protections. Furthermore, he asserted that granting such broad copyrights would stifle competition and innovation in industries reliant on factual information like education and journalism.