The Richmond Nervine Company v. Richmond case in 1895 revolved around a trademark dispute. The plaintiff, the Richmond Nervine Company, alleged that the defendant, Mr. Richmond, had infringed upon their trademark by using his own name to sell similar products and thus deceiving customers into thinking they were buying from the plaintiff's company. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Richmond stating that he had every right to use his own name for business purposes as long as there was no intent or evidence of fraud or deceit towards consumers involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Richmond Nervine Company v. Richmond, the justice argued that there was no evidence of fraudulent intent by the defendant in using his own name in business, even if it caused confusion with another company's trademark. The justice believed that a person has an inherent right to use their own name in trade unless it is proven beyond doubt that they are doing so with dishonest intentions. He also pointed out inconsistencies and contradictions within previous rulings on similar cases which further complicated this case’s decision-making process. Furthermore, he emphasized that penalizing someone for using their real name without clear proof of deceitful motives would be unjust and against principles of fairness and equity.