In the case of Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Company, 1900, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of plaintiff Andreas Saxlehner, a Hungarian pharmacist who owned the trademark for Hunyadi Janos mineral water. The defendants, Eisner & Mendelson Company had been importing and selling a different product under that same name without his permission. The court found that although Saxlehner did not sell his product directly in America himself but through an agent (John Dwight), he still retained exclusive rights to its trademark within American markets as per international law principles recognized by US courts at that time. Therefore, it was held that any unauthorized use of this trademark constituted infringement regardless of whether or not there was intent to deceive consumers about the source or quality of goods being sold under it.

In the dissenting opinion for SAXLEHNER v. EISNER & MENDELSON COMPANY, it was argued that the majority's ruling failed to adequately consider the nature of trademark rights and their relation to consumer protection. The dissenting justices believed that a key aspect of trademarks is their ability to signify a certain level of quality or origin in products, thereby protecting consumers from deception or confusion. They contended that by allowing Eisner & Mendelson Company to use Saxlehner’s trademark without his consent simply because they were selling an authentic product would undermine this crucial function of trademarks. This could potentially lead to customer confusion about who exactly stands behind the goods being sold under a particular mark and erode trust in branded products overall. Furthermore, they expressed concern over how such practices might incentivize unauthorized usage of others' marks and discourage original manufacturers from investing in brand building activities.