- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
Woodland MD summoned by Delhi High Court over confiscated shoes in trademark case
Woodland MD summoned by Delhi High Court over confiscated shoes in trademark case
The order was passed by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the order while hearing the Speedways Tyre Treads’ plea seeking recall of the injunction granted to Woodland and the consequential seizure of shoes from its premises.
The Delhi High Court summoned Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt Ltd Managing Director Harkirat Singh and Senior Manager Madan Kalra after a company claimed that shoes confiscated by a local commissioner were not fake but footwear manufactured under Woodland’s own purchase orders. [Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt Ltd v. Speedways Tyre Treads]
The order was passed by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora while hearing Speedways Tyre Treads’ plea seeking recall of the injunction granted to Woodland and the consequential seizure of shoes from its premises.
The said injunction was granted on October 30, 2025 wherein the Court had restrained Speedways from manufacturing or selling shoes bearing the registered WOODLAND mark and tree logo.
Woodland had claimed that Speedways, which had earlier been a contract manufacturer on a purchase order basis, had started manufacturing and selling WOODLAND-branded shoes without authorisation.
A local commissioner had been appointed by the Court to confiscate finished and unfinished goods, packaging material, dyes, moulds and digital and financial records from Speedways’ Jalandhar premises. The local commissioner was also authorised to record photographs and videos and to get account books and stock registers related to the shoes.
When Speedways placed before the Court emails and purchase orders that as per the defendant, showed that the confiscated shoes were not fake products at all but goods manufactured for Woodland following its own purchase orders, the proceedings took a sharp turn. According to Speedways, the confiscated stock was worth around ₹30 lakh and had been lying with it because Woodland had repeatedly failed to lift the material.
It had been ‘continuously emailing Woodland to lift it’ and the correspondence took place with Woodland’s Managing Director and Senior Manager, the defendant told the Court.
Also as per the defendant, Woodland’s last operational dealings continued till at least 2022 or 2023, contrary to Woodland's claim that the manufacturing relationship ended in 2018.
Unhappy with Woodland’s inability to respond to these declarations, especially after having obtained a confiscation on the claim that Speedways was circulating fake shoes, the Court reportedly 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 asked Woodland to explain why it had proceeded on the basis of counterfeiting when its own correspondence suggested an ongoing stock dispute. At one point, he reportedly asked,
“Why did you get them seized? Why are they seized sir? You make up your mind.”
Counsel for Woodland did not have instructions even as he tried to argue that the seized material consisted of rejected quality control lots, the Court observed. Speedways’ own emails indicated that the goods had not been lifted because Woodland had stopped taking delivery; the judge reminded counsel.
The Court, after inspecting the documents filed with Speedways’ application, recorded that the assertions appeared to be supported by material on record.
Hence, The Court, 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 revealed when Woodland obtained the injunction. Both officers are to remain personally present on the next date of hearing on December 23.
Advocate Abhijit Mittal from Legal Scriptures appeared for Woodland.
Advocates Amit George and Nitesh Mehra appeared for Speedway.



