In the 1917 case of Rock Spring Distilling Company et al. v. W.A. Gaines & Company, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a trademark had been infringed upon by the defendants' use of similar labels on their whiskey bottles as those used by the plaintiff's brand "Old Forester." The plaintiffs argued that this similarity could potentially mislead customers into purchasing their product under false pretenses, believing it to be Old Forester whiskey instead due to its similar packaging and labeling. The court ruled in favor of W.A Gaines & Co., stating that there was no evidence presented proving any intent to deceive consumers nor any actual instances where consumers were deceived. Furthermore, they found significant differences between both companies’ labels which would prevent confusion among buyers - including different names and addresses printed on them along with other distinguishing features such as color schemes and designs. This ruling set an important precedent for future cases involving trademark infringement claims; emphasizing that mere similarities in branding are insufficient grounds for these allegations unless there is clear proof demonstrating deceptive intentions or actual consumer confusion resulting from said similarities.

In the dissenting opinion for Rock Spring Distilling Company et al. v. W.A. Gaines & Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's ruling that a trademark could be protected even if it was not used in commerce between states or with foreign nations. He argued that Congress only had power to regulate trademarks used in interstate and international commerce under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and therefore could not protect trademarks used solely within one state. Furthermore, he contended that allowing federal protection of such marks would infringe upon states' rights to regulate their own internal affairs without interference from Congress.