Dog shoes are a thing. I think, on some level, we all know this. But there’s something about the presentation of these ones in particular that stands out.
Is it the needless naming of them “bark’n boots” or the even more needless trademarking of said name?
Is it the casual classification of them as “paw wear” as though that were an everyday product category?
Is it the perfectly fashion-shot close-up of a dog paw model (and the realization that that’s also a thing)?
Is it that the packaging designer forgot about capital letters?
No. I think it’s the mascot’s opinion on all of the above.
Just look at that sass. “RUFFWEAR? Are you kidding me?”
Mascot dog, I salute you. You don’t have time for all that nonsense. You just want some little booties for your paws.
Bene scribete.
Writin' Fish 
My mother bought her dog silicone boots for the muddy season. While the mud slides off, the paws also slide out. I think mascot dog would have had the same opinion of those.
I guess it’d probably help if these sorts of things covered the whole paw rather than just stopping in the middle of the palm/sole equivalent. (>^-‘)>
I’ve only ever used dog boots/socks in Norway (on my dog, not on myself)-and even then I thought the paw wax worked better. I like ruffwear, but I’m not sure I’d buy the boots…
Paw wax! Now there’s something I actually didn’t know was a thing. (>^-‘)>