Guangzhou Haoqian v. Amy Harlow: Pet Boot Design Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
A Chinese trading company sought a declaratory judgment against pet accessories designer Amy Harlow and Wagwear LLC over two design patents covering the Lewis Dog Boot. The Northern District of New York dismissed the action with prejudice in 156 days, entering final judgment — including a permanent injunction — in favor of the defendants.
Chinese Seller’s Declaratory Judgment Bid Ends in Permanent Injunction
Guangzhou Haoqian Trading Co., Ltd., a Guangzhou-based trading company, filed a declaratory judgment action on May 19, 2025, in the Northern District of New York against Amy Harlow and Wagwear LLC. The dispute centered on two U.S. design patents — USD917796S (App. No. 29/631035) and USD938102S (App. No. 29/773902) — covering the ornamental design of the Lewis Dog Boot. The plaintiff sold a range of competing pet boot products across over 40 Amazon ASINs.
Judge Mae A. D’Agostino dismissed the case with prejudice on October 22, 2025, entering final judgment on the merits in favor of Wagwear LLC and Amy Harlow. Critically, the court also approved a permanent injunction order against Guangzhou Haoqian — an unusually strong outcome in a case initiated by the plaintiff as a declaratory judgment action, suggesting the defendants successfully counterclaimed and obtained affirmative relief rather than merely defeating the plaintiff’s claims.
The 156-day resolution is notably swift for a design patent dispute involving a declaratory judgment posture and a permanent injunction. The outcome suggests that Haoqian’s attempt to neutralise the design patents through a DJ action backfired, resulting in binding equitable relief against its product line. The full scope of the permanent injunction — including which ASINs remain affected — is not entirely determinable from the public docket summary alone.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Defendant in 156 days
156 days from filing to final judgment — well below the median district court patent case duration
Dismissed with prejudice: what the permanent injunction ruling means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice forecloses any refiling
A dismissal with prejudice on the merits is a final adjudication. Guangzhou Haoqian cannot re-file the same declaratory judgment claims in any U.S. court. Combined with a permanent injunction, this outcome goes beyond a simple dismissal — it constitutes affirmative judicial relief in the defendants’ favor, binding Haoqian’s future conduct with respect to the Lewis Dog Boot design.
No refiling permittedDJ plaintiff loses — and faces a permanent injunction
Guangzhou Haoqian filed seeking to clear the path for its Amazon product line across 40+ ASINs. Instead, it now faces a permanent injunction entered by the court — a significantly worse outcome than a simple loss. The affected pet boot ASINs may be enjoined from sale, and the company’s U.S. distribution channel is materially at risk. The public record does not detail the precise scope of enjoined conduct.
Amazon listings at riskWagwear and Harlow secure permanent injunction and final judgment
Amy Harlow and Wagwear LLC not only defeated the declaratory judgment action but obtained affirmative relief: a permanent injunction and a court-entered final judgment in their favor. This represents strong validation of the enforceability of both design patents. The outcome materially strengthens Wagwear’s ability to enforce USD917796S and USD938102S against other potential infringers going forward.
Design patents confirmed enforceableA warning for Amazon sellers competing on pet accessory design
This outcome signals that seeking a declaratory judgment to clear design patent risk can backfire — particularly when the patent holder is prepared to counterclaim and pursue injunctive relief. For sellers of pet boot and accessory products on Amazon, the case underscores that ornamental design patents can generate permanent injunctions against competing product lines, not just damages.
High-risk DJ strategy for importersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Guangzhou Haoqian Trading Co., Ltd | Company | Chinese pet products trading company — seller of competing Lewis Dog Boot-style designs on AmazonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Amy Harlow | Individual | Amy Harlow, designer and co-owner of Wagwear LLC — holder of pet boot ornamental design patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jie Li | Attorney | Counsel for Guangzhou Haoqian Trading Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin J. O’Connor | Attorney | Counsel for Guangzhou Haoqian Trading Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tao Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Guangzhou Haoqian Trading Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wei Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Guangzhou Haoqian Trading Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Glacier Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Guangzhou Haoqian Trading Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Peckar, Abramson Law Firm – NJ Office | Law Firm | Representing Guangzhou Haoqian Trading Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dylan Jordan Harlow | Attorney | Counsel for Amy HarlowSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. Michael Keyes | Attorney | Counsel for Amy HarlowSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dorsey & Whitney LLP | Law Firm | Representing Amy HarlowSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dorsey & Whitney, LLP – WA Office | Law Firm | Representing Amy HarlowSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New York Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict dismisses Haoqian’s declaratory judgment action with prejudice on the merits — meaning the court determined the substantive issues against the plaintiff, not on procedural grounds. The simultaneous entry of a permanent injunction order indicates the defendants pursued and obtained affirmative counterclaim relief. This is a materially stronger outcome for Wagwear and Harlow than a simple dismissal: the injunction creates an ongoing judicial obligation binding Haoqian’s conduct, enforceable through contempt proceedings.
USD917796S & USD938102S — Lewis Dog Boot ornamental design patents
USD917796S (App. No. 29/631035) and USD938102S (App. No. 29/773902) are U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of the Lewis Dog Boot, a consumer pet footwear product. Design patents protect non-functional aesthetic features — in this case, the specific visual design of the boot as worn by dogs. The two-patent portfolio suggests a filing strategy covering an original design and a related or updated variant, creating overlapping aesthetic protection across the product family.
For the pet accessories sector — a rapidly growing consumer category — ornamental design patents have proven to be potent enforcement tools, particularly against Amazon marketplace importers offering visually similar alternatives. Wagwear’s ability to secure a permanent injunction against a competitor with 40+ active ASINs demonstrates the commercial leverage these patents can generate. Competitors in dog footwear, pet apparel, and adjacent accessory categories should treat Wagwear’s design portfolio as a live enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO against USD917796S and USD938102S?
Any company designing, importing, or selling pet boot or dog footwear products for the U.S. market — particularly via Amazon — should conduct a freedom-to-operate assessment against both Wagwear design patents. The permanent injunction entered in this case covers Guangzhou Haoqian’s product line, and the ornamental scope of design patents can extend to visually similar products beyond those explicitly named. R&D and sourcing teams should evaluate whether their boot designs are meaningfully differentiated from the patented Lewis Dog Boot aesthetic.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product teams to map their design against USD917796S and USD938102S, identify the visual claim scope, surface prior art that may limit that scope, and benchmark against other design patent families in the pet accessories category. Running this analysis before a product launch — or before filing a declaratory judgment action — can prevent the kind of outcome Guangzhou Haoqian experienced in this case.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0917796S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent cases: pet accessories and Amazon channel enforcement
Explore comparable design patent infringement and declaratory judgment cases in the pet accessories sector litigated in U.S. district courts, including Amazon ASIN-level enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the pet accessories IP and Amazon seller landscape
A declaratory judgment filed to clear design patent risk ended in a permanent injunction — a pattern with implications for any importer competing on product aesthetics.
DJ actions against design patent holders carry counterclaim risk
Filing for declaratory judgment is often seen as a defensive move, but this case illustrates the downside: it hands the patent holder a U.S. forum and the opportunity to counterclaim for infringement and injunctive relief. Companies evaluating DJ strategy against design patent holders should model the counterclaim scenario before filing.
Ornamental design patents are increasingly effective against Amazon-channel importers
With 40+ ASINs at stake, this case reflects a broader enforcement trend: U.S. design patent holders are pursuing Amazon-channel sellers — many China-based — with growing success. A permanent injunction outcome reinforces that design patents covering consumer product aesthetics carry real commercial teeth in U.S. courts.
Guangzhou v Amy — key questions answered
Guangzhou Haoqian filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of New York seeking to invalidate or clear design patents USD917796S and USD938102S held by Wagwear LLC and Amy Harlow, covering the Lewis Dog Boot. The case was dismissed with prejudice on October 22, 2025, with final judgment entered in favor of defendants, including a permanent injunction against Haoqian.
Both are U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of the Lewis Dog Boot, a consumer pet footwear product designed by Amy Harlow and sold by Wagwear LLC. USD917796S corresponds to App. No. 29/631035 and USD938102S to App. No. 29/773902. Design patents protect the non-functional visual features of a product, not its utility.
A permanent injunction entered by the court prohibits Guangzhou Haoqian from continuing conduct found to infringe the design patents. This likely extends to the 40+ Amazon ASINs identified in the complaint. Violation of the injunction constitutes contempt of court. The precise scope of enjoined conduct is determined by the injunction’s specific language, which is incorporated in Judge D’Agostino’s October 22, 2025 order.
Declaratory judgment actions allow a party facing IP threat letters or marketplace enforcement pressure to proactively seek a court ruling that they do not infringe or that the patent is invalid. This strategy is intended to shift the forum and timing of litigation to the would-be defendant’s advantage. In this case, the strategy appears to have failed, resulting in a worse outcome than if Haoqian had negotiated or redesigned its products.
The dismissal with prejudice directly binds only Guangzhou Haoqian. However, the permanent injunction issued by the court and the confirmed enforceability of USD917796S and USD938102S signal elevated litigation risk for other sellers of visually similar dog boot designs. Sellers of competing pet boot products on Amazon should assess their exposure to these patents via a freedom-to-operate review.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.