Opinion ID: 699269
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction Over the Grants of Summary Judgment

Text: 11 SRF asks us to review the portion of the June 21 order granting CSR summary judgment on the validity of the Paramahansa Yogananda mark (the summary judgment order). SRF also asks us to review the portion of the June 21 order denying reconsideration of the April 24 order granting summary judgment on the Self-Realization, Self-Realization Fellowship, and Self-Realization Fellowship Church names and marks (the reconsideration order). 12 These orders are reviewable because their legality is inextricably bound up with the legality of the dissolution of the injunction. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(1) confers jurisdiction not only over orders concerning injunctions, but also over matters inextricably bound up with the injunctive order from which appeal is taken. TransWorld Airlines v. American Coupon Exch., 913 F.2d 676, 680 (9th Cir.1990). A summary judgment order that provides the legal authority to issue an injunction--that constitutes a necessary predicate to complete review of the injunction--is inextricably bound up with the injunction. See id. 13 The June 21 summary judgment and reconsideration orders removed any legal basis for the preliminary injunction enjoining CSR from using the terms at issue. The June 21 summary judgment order ruled that SRF's mark on the term Paramahansa Yogananda was invalid as a matter of law, and the reconsideration order ruled that SRF's trade names and marks on the terms Self-realization, Self-Realization Fellowship, and Self-Realization Fellowship Church, were also invalid as a matter of law. Since these trade names and marks were ruled invalid, SRF had no legal right to be free from CSR's use of the terms, and as these orders were necessary predicates to lifting SRF's preliminary injunction on CSR, they are appealable as orders inextricably bound up with review of the dissolution order.