In Fennerstein's Champagne, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case concerning whether or not an individual could obtain exclusive rights to use a trademark. The plaintiff in this case was Charles Fennerstein, who had registered his champagne brand with the U.S. Patent Office and sought to prevent others from using it without permission. The defendant argued that trademarks were not protected by federal law and thus did not require registration for protection; they also argued that even if trademarks were protectable under federal law, Fennerstein’s mark was too generic to be considered distinctive enough for protection. In its ruling, the court held that while there is no explicit provision in federal law protecting trademarks as intellectual property rights, common-law principles do provide such protections when marks are sufficiently distinct and recognizable among consumers—which they found was true of Fennerstein’s mark—and therefore affirmed his right to exclusive use of it.

In Fennerstein's Champagne, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal tax on champagne imported from France violated the Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate the Constitution because Congress had broad authority to impose taxes for revenue purposes. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that this particular tax exceeded Congress' power under Article I of the Constitution and infringed upon states’ rights by interfering with their ability to regulate commerce within their borders. He further argued that since there were no other taxes imposed on foreign imports at this time, singling out one product for taxation was an unconstitutional exercise of power by Congress and should be struck down as invalid.