In the case of Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company v. Hall's Safe Company, 1907, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition. The plaintiff, Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co., alleged that Hall's Safe Co. was using their name to deceive customers into thinking they were purchasing from them when in fact they were not affiliated at all. The defendant argued that because "Hall" was part of their company name before merging with other companies to form Herring-Hall-Marvin, they had every right to use it in business operations post-merger as well. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff stating that even though "Hall" may have been used by both parties prior to merger, once merged under a new entity (Herring-Hall-Marvin), any usage by another party could potentially mislead consumers and create an unfair advantage for said party - thus constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company v. Hall's Safe Company argued that the majority had erred in its interpretation and application of patent law principles. The dissent contended that there was no substantial difference between the design patented by Herring-Hall-Marvin and an earlier, expired patent for a similar safe design. Therefore, they believed it was incorrect to grant a new patent for essentially the same invention under slightly different specifications or descriptions. They also disagreed with the majority's view on infringement, arguing that Hall’s Safe Company did not infrally upon any valid claim held by Herring-Hall-Marvin as their product did not copy any novel features from them but rather used common elements found in many safes at that time period.