In the case of Overland Motor Company v. Packard Motor Company et al., 1926, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Packard Motor Company. The dispute arose when Overland claimed that Packard had violated antitrust laws by entering into exclusive dealing contracts with its dealerships, which prevented them from selling other brands' cars. However, the court found no violation as it was not proven that these agreements substantially lessened competition or created a monopoly within any line of commerce. The court held that exclusivity arrangements between manufacturers and distributors were permissible under antitrust law unless they resulted in monopolistic practices or restrained trade to an unreasonable degree.

In the dissenting opinion for Overland Motor Company v. Packard Motor Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold an injunction against Overland for trademark infringement was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence of actual confusion among consumers between Packard and Overland's trademarks, which they considered a necessary condition for infringement. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "unfair competition," arguing that this concept should only apply when one company is trying to pass off its goods as those of another - something they did not believe Overland had done. Furthermore, they felt that by ruling in favor of Packard, the court was unfairly restricting competition and limiting consumer choice.