DCT
1:25-cv-00638
Guangzhou Haoqian Trading Co Ltd v. Harlow
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Guangzhou Haoqian Trading Co., Ltd, d/b/a Zealting (China)
- Defendant: Amy Harlow and Wagwear, LLC (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00638, N.D.N.Y., 05/19/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Northern District of New York based on the alleged residence of both individual and corporate Defendants within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff, a seller of pet products, seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Pet Boot Products" do not infringe Defendants' two design patents and that those patents are invalid.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of pet footwear, a consumer product category within the broader pet accessories market.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was initiated after Defendants filed patent infringement complaints with Amazon, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiff's product listings from the online marketplace. This action by Defendants is alleged to have created the actual case or controversy required for federal court jurisdiction.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-07-19 | Alleged public availability of "Lewis Dog Boots" prior art |
| 2015-03-30 | Publication of YouTube video showing "Lewis Dog Boots" |
| 2015-08-26 | Issuance of Chinese Patent No. 303351063 cited as prior art |
| 2015-09-08 | Alleged market availability of "dog wellies" prior art |
| 2017-12-27 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. D917,796 and D938,102 |
| 2021-04-27 | U.S. Patent No. D917,796 Issued |
| 2021-12-07 | U.S. Patent No. D938,102 Issued |
| 2025-05-XX | Amazon removes Plaintiff's product listings |
| 2025-05-19 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D917,796, “PET BOOT,” issued April 27, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not contain background sections that articulate a technical problem. The patent seeks to protect a particular ornamental appearance for a pet boot.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a pet boot characterized by a smooth, unperforated, and continuous surface forming a bulbous main body, a taller cuff, and a single wraparound strap positioned where the cuff and body meet (’796 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The overall visual impression is that of a seamless, sock-like or balloon-like covering for a pet's paw.
- Technical Importance: The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the specific importance of this design, other than Defendants' enforcement of it (’796 Patent, Claim; Compl. ¶¶ 8, 11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a pet boot, as shown and described" (’796 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual features of the claimed design include:
- A bulbous, rounded main body.
- A smooth, continuous, and unperforated surface on the upper body.
- A simple, untextured sole that is continuous with the main body.
- A distinct, taller cuff section.
- A single wraparound strap for fastening.
U.S. Design Patent No. D938,102, “PET BOOT,” issued December 7, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, it does not articulate a specific problem. It seeks to protect a distinct ornamental appearance for a pet boot.
- The Patented Solution: The ’102 Patent claims an ornamental design for a pet boot that is similar in overall form to the ’796 Patent but is distinguished by the inclusion of multiple rows of circular perforations across the top surface of the boot’s main body (’102 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The design retains the tall cuff, wraparound strap, and smooth, untextured sole. The patent specification explicitly disclaims the broken lines depicting stitching on the strap as part of the claimed design (’102 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the specific importance of this design beyond its assertion against Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a pet boot, as shown and described" (’102 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual features of the claimed design include:
- A bulbous, rounded main body.
- Multiple rows of circular perforations on the upper surface of the main body.
- A smooth, untextured sole.
- A distinct, taller cuff section.
- A single wraparound strap.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused products as "Plaintiff's Pet Boot Products," sold on the Amazon marketplace under the "Zealting" brand (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 11).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the visual characteristics of its products to distinguish them from the patented designs. Plaintiff’s product is alleged to have "multiple evenly spaced ventilation holes," a "textured outsole with visible perforations and tread patterns," and a more "structured, resembling a miniature Crocs-style shoe" silhouette where the sole "wraps partially over the front" (Compl. ¶¶ 44, 49). The complaint states that the Amazon marketplace is Plaintiff's "primary sales channel into the United States" (Compl. ¶12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment, the following summarizes Plaintiff's arguments for non-infringement.
D917,796 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations
| Claimed Design Feature ('796 Patent) | Alleged Non-Infringing Product Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smooth, solid upper surface with no perforations or similar pattern. | Features "multiple evenly spaced ventilation holes throughout the upper surface." | ¶44 | '796 Patent, Fig. 3 |
| Simple, untextured outsole lacking any tread or surface patterning. | Shows a "textured outsole with visible perforations and tread patterns." | ¶44 | '796 Patent, Fig. 3 |
The complaint provides a side-by-side image comparing the patent's line drawing with a photograph of Plaintiff's pink, perforated product to highlight these asserted differences (Compl. p. 11).
D938,102 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations
| Claimed Design Feature ('102 Patent) | Alleged Non-Infringing Product Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smooth, continuous curve from toe to upper, giving an impression of a "sock-like or slipper-style fit." | "Sole wraps partially over the front," and the silhouette is "more structured, resembling a miniature Crocs-style shoe." | ¶49 | '102 Patent, Fig. 3 |
| Smooth and untextured sole, with no visible tread, perforation, or sculpting. | Outsole includes "rectangular perforations and raised texture patterns for grip," creating a "utilitarian and rugged look." | ¶49 | '102 Patent, Fig. 3 |
To support its non-infringement position for the ’102 Patent, the complaint provides an image comparing the patent drawing to its product, using a red box to emphasize the textured and perforated outsole (Compl. p. 13).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central issue for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The dispute will turn on whether the differences asserted by the Plaintiff—particularly the presence of holes versus the solid design of the ’796 Patent, and the sole texture and overall silhouette versus the ’102 Patent—are sufficient to create a different overall visual impression.
- Technical Questions: The case raises the factual question of how the visual features of the accused products compare to those claimed in the patents. For instance, do the ventilation holes and textured sole on Plaintiff's product create a "substantially similar" overall appearance to the design of the ’102 Patent, which claims holes but on a smooth-soled boot? For the '796 patent, the complaint presents a side-by-side comparison of alleged prior art "Lewis Dog Boots" and the claimed design to argue invalidity (Compl. p. 6).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, construction focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than on discrete text-based terms. The primary "term" for construction is the claimed design itself.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a pet boot."
- Context and Importance: The entire dispute hinges on the scope of the visual impression protected by each patent. The court's "construction" will involve determining the overall appearance of the claimed design and how it is informed by the cited prior art. Practitioners may focus on this analysis because the existence of two separate patents, one with holes ('102) and one without ('796), suggests the presence or absence of perforations is a key distinguishing feature that may limit the scope of each design.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claims cover the overall shape and configuration—a bulbous body, tall cuff, and single strap—and that differences in surface ornamentation or sole texture are minor variations that do not change the substantially similar overall appearance.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claims are limited to the exact designs shown in the solid lines of the drawings, including the untextured sole and the specific shape of the boot. The explicit disclaimer of stitching in the ’102 Patent supports the argument that only what is shown in solid lines is claimed (’102 Patent, Description). The plaintiff's invalidity arguments, which rely on prior art boots with similar general shapes, may be used to argue that the scope of the patented designs must be narrow to be valid over that art (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 26).
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful patent infringement, as it is a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer. However, it does include related allegations:
- Plaintiff seeks a judgment that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could entitle it to an award of attorneys' fees, based on Defendants' conduct in reporting infringement to Amazon (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶6).
- The complaint includes a separate count for tortious interference with business relationships, alleging that Defendants' infringement reports to Amazon were "baseless" (Compl. ¶53).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court's determination of two central issues:
A core issue will be one of invalidity in light of prior art: Does the prior art cited in the complaint, such as the "Lewis Dog Boots" or "dog wellies," render the ornamental designs of the ’796 and ’102 patents anticipated or obvious to a designer of ordinary skill? The complaint presents several visual comparisons suggesting a high degree of similarity between the prior art and the patented designs.
A key evidentiary question will be one of overall visual appearance: Under the "ordinary observer" test, are the asserted visual differences between Plaintiff's products (e.g., ventilation holes, textured/perforated soles, "Croc-like" silhouette) and the patented designs significant enough to prevent marketplace confusion, particularly when viewed in the context of the available prior art?