In the case of Sioux Remedy Company v. Cope, 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights and trademark infringement. The Sioux Remedy Company had patented a medicine called "Sioux Indian Sagwa," which was sold in bottles bearing labels that were also copyrighted by them. They accused Mr.Cope of selling a similar product under the same name and using identical or very similar labels on his bottles, thereby infringing upon their copyright and deceiving customers into thinking they were buying an authentic Sioux remedy when it was actually Cope's imitation. The court ruled against Mr.Cope for both patent infringement and unfair competition due to deceptive practices causing confusion among consumers about the origin of goods being purchased. This decision reinforced legal protections for intellectual property rights while emphasizing that such laws are not only meant to protect inventors but also to prevent consumer deception.

In the dissenting opinion for Sioux Remedy Company v. Cope, it was argued that the majority decision failed to adequately consider the nature of interstate commerce and its regulation under federal law. The dissent contended that while states have a right to protect their citizens from fraudulent business practices, this should not extend to regulating transactions occurring entirely outside their jurisdiction. In this case, where an Iowa company sold products directly to consumers in South Dakota via mail order, it was argued that South Dakota had overstepped its bounds by attempting to regulate these sales as if they were local transactions. This interpretation could potentially infringe upon Congress's exclusive power over interstate commerce and disrupt national economic unity.