Delhi High Court summons Woodland MD over seized shoes in trademark case

The Delhi High Court on Monday summoned Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt Ltd Managing Director Harkirat Singh and Senior Manager Madan Kalra after a company claimed that shoes seized by a local commissioner were not counterfeit but footwear manufactured under Woodland’s own purchase orders. [Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt Ltd v. Speedways Tyre Treads]

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the order while hearing the plea filed by Speedways Tyre Treads seeking recall of the injunction granted to Woodland and the consequential seizure of shoes from its premises.

The injunction in question was granted on October 30, 2025. In that order, the Court had restrained Speedways from manufacturing or selling shoes bearing the registered WOODLAND mark and tree logo.

Woodland had alleged that Speedways, which had previously been a contract manufacturer on a purchase order basis, had begun manufacturing and selling WOODLAND-branded shoes without authorisation.

The Court had appointed a local commissioner to seize finished and unfinished goods, packaging material, dyes, moulds and digital and financial records from Speedways’ premises in Jalandhar. The local commissioner was also authorised to record photographs and videos and to obtain account books and stock registers relating to the shoes.

The proceedings took a sharp turn when Speedways placed before the Court emails and purchase orders which, according to the defendant, showed that the seized shoes were not counterfeit products at all but goods manufactured for Woodland pursuant to its own purchase orders. Speedways stated that the seized stock was worth approximately ₹30 lakh and had been lying with it because Woodland had repeatedly failed to lift the material.

The defendant told the Court that it had been “continuously emailing them to lift it” and that the correspondence took place with Woodland’s Managing Director and Senior Manager. The defendant also submitted that Woodland’s last operational dealings continued until at least 2022 or 2023, contrary to Woodland's claim that the manufacturing relationship ended in 2018.

The Court was dissatisfied with Woodland’s inability to respond to these assertions, particularly after having obtained a seizure on the allegation that Speedways was circulating counterfeit shoes. It thus told the counsel,

“You came to court on a counterfeit allegation and here is a party saying that these are goods produced under your order. You think there is no difference in this situation and you don’t even have an answer whether these are counterfeit or genuine once you have carried out the LC.”

Justice Arora pressed Woodland to explain why it had proceeded on the basis of counterfeiting when its own correspondence suggested an ongoing stock dispute. At one point the judge asked,

“Why did you get them seized? Why are they seized sir? You make up your mind.”

The Court noted that counsel for Woodland did not have instructions even as he attempted to argue that the seized material consisted of rejected quality control lots. The judge reminded counsel that Speedways’ own emails indicated that the goods had not been lifted because Woodland had stopped taking delivery.

After examining the documents filed with Speedways’ application, the Court recorded that the assertions appeared to be supported by material on record.

The Court, therefore, directed Woodland to deposit ₹30 lakh with the Registrar General and ordered Harkirat Singh and Madan Kalra to file personal affidavits explaining why the communications exchanged between the parties were not disclosed when Woodland obtained the injunction. Both officers are to remain personally present on the next date of hearing.

The case will now come up for hearing on December 23.

Advocate Abhijit Mittal from Legal Scriptures appeared for Woodland.

Advocate Nitesh Mehra appeared for Speedway.