Opinion ID: 23169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: accordance with this opinion.

Text: We summarize, as follows: The judgment is reversed as to the res judicata effect of the Utah judgment. Further, the judgments of the Utah court and the Tenth Circuit do not pres- ent any issues of collateral estoppel that bind the Texas court. P&G’s Lanham Act claim for disparagement of its commercial activities is remanded for fact-finding to determine wheth- er the primary motivation of the Amway disseminators of the Satanism rumor was eco- nomic. If it was, then the speech is commer- cial; if not, the speech was noncommercial, and no Lanham Act claim is available. The judgment that P&G must prove actual malice to succeed on its Lanham Act claim for dispar- agement of commercial activities is reversed; no actual malice need be found. The judgment dismissing P&G’s alter ego, single business enterprise, and vicarious lia- bility arguments against Ja-Ri and ADAC is affirmed. The judgment that P&G did not have prudential standing to bring a Lanham Act claim based on Amway’s alleged misrepre- sentations to its own distributors is affirmed. The judgment dismissing P&G’s RICO claims 32