The French Republic v. Saratoga Vichy Spring Co., 1903, was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on whether or not a foreign government could register and protect its trademarks within the U.S. The French Republic had registered "Vichy" as a trademark for mineral water in France and sought to prevent Saratoga Vichy Spring Company from using it in America. However, Saratoga argued that 'Vichy' was merely descriptive of a type of water, rather than indicative of its origin. The court sided with Saratoga, ruling that while international law requires respect for patents and copyrights held by foreigners, this does not extend to trademarks because they are governed by domestic laws where goods are sold. Therefore, unless there is an explicit treaty providing reciprocal protection between countries (which did not exist between France and US at the time), foreign governments cannot enforce their trademark rights within U.S borders.

In the dissenting opinion for The French Republic v. Saratoga Vichy Spring Co., it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider international law and its implications on trademark rights. The dissenting justices believed that, under international law, a foreign government should have the right to protect its commercial interests abroad, including trademarks associated with products originating from their country. They contended that by denying this protection to France in relation to 'Vichy' water - a product closely tied with French identity - the court was effectively undermining established principles of comity among nations and disregarding precedents set by previous cases involving similar issues of national interest and sovereignty over domestic products. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on American businesses operating overseas if other countries were to reciprocate based on this ruling.