In the 1909 U.S. Supreme Court case of Saxlehner v. Wagner, Hungarian pharmacist Andreas Saxlehner sued John Wagner and others for trademark infringement over the use of his "Hunyadi Janos" mineral water brand name. The defendants argued that they were not infringing on any rights because "Hunyadi Janos" was a geographic term referring to a well-known spring in Hungary, therefore it could not be monopolized as a trademark under U.S law. However, the court ruled in favor of Saxlehner stating that even though 'Hunyadi Janos' referred to a geographical location, it had acquired secondary meaning due to its long-term usage by Mr. Saxlehner and thus deserved protection under US Trademark laws.

In the dissenting opinion for SAXLEHNER v. WAGNER, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny Saxlehner's request for an injunction against Wagner and his associates was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that even though Saxlehner did not have a physical presence or business in America, he still had legal rights to his trademark under international law. They contended that by allowing Wagner and others to use the "Hungarian Bitter Water" label on their products without permission from its original owner (Saxlehner), they were essentially stealing intellectual property. This act of infringement could potentially harm Saxlehner’s reputation if consumers associated inferior goods with his brand name due to unauthorized usage by other parties. Therefore, these justices felt strongly about protecting foreign trademarks in order to maintain fair trade practices globally.