The U.S. Supreme Court case Worden v. California Fig Syrup Company in 1902 revolved around a trademark dispute between two companies producing fig syrup, one based in New York and the other in California. The New York-based company, owned by John D. Park & Sons, had been using the name "Syrup of Figs" for their product since 1879 but did not register it as a trademark until 1893. In contrast, the California Fig Syrup Company began operations in 1886 and registered its similar product under "California Syrup of Figs" as a trademark before Park & Sons' registration. Park & Sons sued for infringement on their trade name; however, they lost both at trial level and upon appeal to the Supreme Court due to lack of evidence proving that consumers were confused or deceived by similar names. The court ruled that merely descriptive terms could not be exclusively appropriated as trademarks if they are used descriptively rather than distinctively - meaning if they describe an ingredient (figs), method or characteristic of goods rather than identifying its source (the manufacturer). This ruling set important precedent regarding what constitutes valid trademarks.

In the dissenting opinion for Worden v. California Fig Syrup Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a trademark infringement claim against Worden was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant differences between the two products in question and their packaging, which would prevent any reasonable consumer from confusing them. They also pointed out that both companies had been operating in different markets without issue until recently when they started competing directly with each other. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "unfair competition," arguing that this should only apply if one company is trying to pass off its goods as those of another - something they did not believe was happening in this case.