In the 1947 case Globe Liquor Co., Inc. v. San Roman et al., doing business as International Industries, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition between two liquor companies. The plaintiff, Globe Liquor Co., alleged that the defendants had infringed on their trademark by using similar labels for their products which caused confusion among consumers and resulted in loss of sales for Globe Liquor Co. The defendants argued that they were not aware of any such similarity and denied any intentional wrongdoing. The court ruled in favor of Globe Liquor Co., stating that regardless of whether or not there was intent to deceive, it was clear from evidence presented during trial proceedings that there existed substantial similarities between both company's product labels which could easily mislead customers into believing they were purchasing products from Globe when in fact they were buying those produced by San Roman et al. This ruling set an important precedent regarding cases involving allegations of trademark infringement and unfair competition; demonstrating how courts would consider potential consumer confusion as a significant factor when making decisions about these types of disputes.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Globe Liquor Co., Inc. v. San Roman et al., argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to consider important factors related to interstate commerce regulations. The dissent emphasized that under existing law, a state could regulate liquor sales within its borders but not interfere with interstate commerce by imposing restrictions on out-of-state businesses selling alcohol directly to consumers within the state. They contended that Puerto Rico’s legislation violated this principle by effectively barring mainland companies from shipping alcohol directly to private residents in Puerto Rico, thereby unfairly favoring local distributors at the expense of non-local ones. This, they believed, constituted an undue burden on interstate commerce and should have been struck down as unconstitutional.