Opinion ID: 23169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: error on the part of the district court.”)).

Text: The district court erred in dismissing P&G’s claim for product disparagement under It would have been more helpful if P&G the Lanham Act and its claims under § 16.29 had provided us with more information on the of the TEXAS BUSINESS AND COMMERCE product disparagement claim. It is enough, CODE. During trial, P&G argued that Amway however, that P&G points out that at one had disparaged P&G’s Crest toothpaste by al- point the district court found that there was leging that Crest scratches teeth. The district enough evidence of disparagement to get to a court initially found that “there is evidence in jurySSincluding evidence that Amway had 30 made a factually false claim that Crest scratch- claims is four years. In Jackson v. Speer, 974 es teethSSand then later dismissed the claim F.2d 676, 679 (5th Cir. 1992), we explained: without explanation. This alone is sufficient to show reversible error. If, however, the injured part y is not aware of the fraud or the fraud is con- As to the § 16.29 claim, the court dismissed cealed, the statute of limitations begins it based on its finding that res judicata from to run from the time the fraud is discovthe Utah case barred the claims against Hau- ered or could have been discovered by gen and Walker, and based on its ruling that the defrauded party’s exercise of reason- P&G was required to prove actual malice to able diligence. Knowledge of facts that prevail on its Lanham Act claim. The court would lead a reasonably prudent person stated: to make inquiry which would lead to a discovery of the fraud is knowledge of [T]he only other issue that would have the fraud itself. been left alive in the case would have been the Sect ion 1629 case under the (Emphasis added.) business of commerce code, which es- sentially allows for injunctive relief with- P&G claims that, even exercising reasonout any of the other claims in the case, able diligence, it could not have discovered the the Court dismisses as a matter of law fraud until 1995. Evidence submitted by the Section 1629 of the TEXAS BUSI- Amway that was uncontroverted by P&G NESS & COMMERCE CODE claim for shows, however, that P&G knew, or reasoninjunctive relief. ably should have known, by the mid-to-late 1980’s that it could not rely on Amway’s Because we are reversing and remanding on statements that Amway would help stop the res judicata and actual malice, the dismissal of Satanism rumor. Gerald Gendall, head of pubwhich formed the basis for the dismissal of the lic affairs at P&G, testified that he “thought § 16.29 claim, we also reverse and remand the P&G should have sued Amway almost on a § 16.29 claim. continuous basis.” Gendall also stated that after 1983, he did not rely on any representa-