In the case of Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company v. Houston Ice & Brewing Company et al., 1918, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition. The plaintiff, Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company, claimed that the defendant, Houston Ice & Brewing Company had infringed upon their trademark by using similar packaging for its beer products which could potentially confuse consumers. The court ruled in favor of the defendant stating that there was no evidence to prove any intent on part of Houston Ice & Brewing company to deceive customers or pass off their goods as those produced by Schlitz Brewery. Furthermore, it was noted that both companies were operating in different markets (Texas and Wisconsin), reducing chances for confusion among consumers.

In the dissenting opinion for Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company v. Houston Ice & Brewing Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Schlitz was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of trademark law. The dissent contended that Schlitz had not violated any laws by using similar packaging and labeling as Houston Ice & Brewing because these elements were not distinctive enough to be protected under trademark law. They believed that only unique or original aspects of a product could be legally protected from imitation, which did not include generic features such as color schemes or bottle shapes used by both companies in this case. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on consumer confusion, arguing there wasn't sufficient evidence proving consumers would mistake one brand for another based on these similarities alone.