SAN JOSE (LN) — U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb on Tuesday denied a motion for preliminary injunction filed by The Analytical Moose LLC and Rachael Brady, rejecting their attempt to block Intterra, LLC from launching its AWARECA mobile application on May 1.

Shubb held that the defendants failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their Lanham Act and common-law trademark infringement counterclaims, finding that the "AWARE" mark is inherently weak due to widespread third-party use in a crowded field.

The dispute centers on Intterra's plan to launch AWARECA, a public safety information platform selected by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as the state's official wildfire alert system. Intterra, which sells software exclusively to government agencies, adopted the AWARE branding of the state to avoid conflict with the existing ready.ca.gov website.

Brady, who operates the consumer-facing Wildfire Aware app, sent a cease-and-desist letter in January demanding Intterra abandon the AWARECA mark. She argued that the shared use of "AWARE" would confuse consumers seeking wildfire information.

Shubb held that Brady's delay in seeking relief counseled against a finding of irreparable harm. The court noted that Brady learned of Intterra's launch plans on Jan. 6 but did not file the motion for injunctive relief until April 3, nearly three months later.

The court cited precedent stating that "[a]n unjustified delay in seeking an injunction may undermine a movant's argument that [they] will suffer irreparable harm of a" preliminary injunction. Shubb noted that unreasonable delay is measured from when the movant knew or should have known of the potential cause of action.

The judge also rejected the argument that settlement negotiations justified the delay, noting that a party suffering irreparable harm should seek injunctive relief rather than engaging in lengthy negotiations. Shubb observed that the delay placed the court at a disadvantage in reaching a conclusion on short notice.

On the merits, Shubb applied the Ninth Circuit's Sleekcraft factors, finding that the strength of the mark weighed heavily against Brady. The court noted that Brady had previously argued to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that the "AWARE" field was crowded, listing 11 existing marks to support her own registration.

Intterra cited 31 existing "AWARE" marks, many related to emergency preparedness, to demonstrate that the term is merely one of a crowd. Shubb agreed, writing that where a mark resides in a crowded field, it is weak as a matter of law.

The judge also found that the marks were not confusingly similar, noting that Brady had previously argued to the USPTO that the addition of "WILDFIRE" rendered her mark markedly different from generic "AWARE" marks. Shubb concluded that the same logic applied to Intterra's variations, such as AWARECA and AWARE OPS.

Shubb denied the motion for preliminary injunction, allowing Intterra to proceed with its May 1 launch.