In the 1900 case of Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Company, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of plaintiff Andreas Saxlehner, a Hungarian pharmacist who owned the trademark for "Hunyadi Janos" mineral water. The defendant, Siegel-Cooper Company had been selling a different product under this name and was sued by Saxlehner for trademark infringement. The court held that even though there were no physical goods being imported into America (Saxlehner's water was not sold in America), his ownership of the brand name still stood as he had registered it with U.S authorities. Therefore, any use of it without his permission constituted an infringement on his rights to exclusive use and profit from that brand within American territory.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Company argued that the majority's decision to deny protection for Johann B. Saxlehner's trademark was incorrect, as it failed to consider the broader implications for international trade and commerce. The dissent emphasized that while Saxlehner may not have had a physical presence or business operations within U.S borders, his product - Hunyadi Janos mineral water - was widely recognized and sold across America through agents. Therefore, he should be entitled to protect his brand against counterfeits under U.S law just like any domestic manufacturer would be able to do so. The dissent also highlighted how this ruling could potentially discourage foreign manufacturers from selling their products in the United States due to fear of inadequate legal protections against fraud and counterfeit goods.