Cult.fit is facing a fresh legal challenge over the ownership of its flagship CULT trademark, adding another complication ahead of the fitness company’s proposed initial public offering (IPO). The Madras High Court has issued notice on a petition filed by Deepak Poduval, co-founder of the original CULT fitness business, seeking cancellation of the trademark registration held by Cultfit Healthcare Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of Cult.fit Ltd.
Poduval alleges that documents used to transfer the CULT brand to the Cult.fit group in 2017 contain forged signatures. The company has denied the allegations, maintaining that the transfer documents were signed and that ownership of the brand rests within the Cult.fit group. The dispute is significant because CULT is central to the company’s fitness business, and questions surrounding its ownership could attract investor scrutiny during the IPO process.
Madras High Court Issues Notice on CULT Trademark Petition
The Madras High Court issued notice on October 12, 2026, in a trademark rectification petition filed by Poduval. The case seeks cancellation of the CULT trademark registration held by Cultfit Healthcare Pvt Ltd.
During a hearing on November 5, the court adjourned the matter to December 2, allowing the company to file its response.
The petition directly challenges the legal basis on which Cultfit Healthcare claims ownership of the CULT brand.
Poduval co-founded the original CULT fitness business in Bengaluru in 2015. He argues that he was involved in creating the brand and initially applied for its trademark in his own name.
The latest petition is part of a wider legal dispute between the former business partners over the transfer of the original fitness business and its intellectual property to the Cult.fit group.
Importantly, the court has issued notice and scheduled further proceedings. It has not ruled that the trademark transfer documents were forged or that Cult.fit does not own the brand.
How the CULT Trademark Dispute Began
The disagreement over the trademark dates back to 2015.
Poduval first applied for the trademark ‘CULT – The Workout Station’ in August 2015.
Cultfit Healthcare filed a separate trademark application in November 2016, claiming that it had been using the brand since May 1, 2015. This was the same first-use date mentioned in Poduval’s application.
The Trademark Registry subsequently raised objections because of Poduval’s earlier application.
According to the legal filings described by Inc42, Cultfit Healthcare did not initially produce the alleged assignment deeds in response to the objection. Instead, it claimed that it was the prior user and owner of the trademark in its own right.
Poduval has challenged the validity of the 2017 assignment deeds that supposedly transferred the brand to Cultfit Healthcare.
He alleges that his signatures on those documents were forged and has referred to a privately commissioned forensic examination that he says supports his claim.
Cult.fit disputes this account and maintains that Poduval signed the assignment documents.
The central question is whether the 2017 documents validly transferred the trademark rights and whether the subsidiary has a legally established claim to the brand.
Separate Bengaluru Case Seeks to Cancel 2017 Assignment Deeds
The trademark petition is not the only legal proceeding involving the former co-founders.
Poduval has also approached the Commercial Court in Bengaluru, seeking to have the 2017 assignment deeds declared void.
The case concerns the documents that purportedly transferred the CULT brand and related intellectual property to the Cult.fit group.
The matter was scheduled for its next hearing on November 16, 2026.
The dispute also extends to the original company’s assets and ownership structure.
In August 2026, Poduval filed a first information report (FIR) against former business partner Rishabh Telang at Bengaluru’s Bellandur Police Station. He alleged forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy in connection with the transfer of assets and intellectual property from Cult Fitness Pvt Ltd to Cultfit Healthcare Pvt Ltd.
Poduval has also alleged that his 50% shareholding in the original company was extinguished without consideration.
Telang has denied the allegations, maintaining that Poduval participated in the transactions and received consideration for the transfer.
Cult.fit has similarly maintained that the transactions were conducted under appropriate contractual arrangements and that consideration was paid and acknowledged.
Telang subsequently approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the FIR. The court sought responses from Poduval and the state but did not stay the investigation.
These allegations remain disputed and have not been established as findings of the courts.
Cult.fit Acknowledges Incorrect Trademark Ownership Disclosure in IPO Papers
The legal challenge has become particularly important because of Cult.fit’s proposed IPO.
In a written response dated October 14, 2026, to a complaint filed by Poduval with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Cult.fit acknowledged that its draft IPO prospectus did not correctly describe the ownership of the CULT trademarks.
The company clarified that the trademarks are registered in the name of Cultfit Healthcare Pvt Ltd, rather than directly in the name of Cult.fit Ltd.
Cult.fit also undertook to correct the disclosure in its final prospectus.
This distinction matters because Cultfit Healthcare is a subsidiary of Cult.fit Ltd. Although both entities belong to the same corporate group, the legal ownership of intellectual property must be accurately identified in documents provided to prospective investors.
Poduval has also questioned why the CULT acquisition was treated as immaterial in the draft IPO prospectus.
He has argued that the brand is too important to the company’s business to be treated as an insignificant acquisition.
The company has said that the matter is before the courts and that ownership of the CULT brand and trademark rests within the Cult.fit group, supported by its registrations and documentation.
Why the CULT Trademark Is Important to the Business
CULT is one of the central brands in Cult.fit’s fitness operations.
The brand is used across hundreds of fitness centres and related offerings, including Cult Neo gyms and Cultgear products.
Cult.fit has expanded beyond traditional gym memberships into a broader fitness and wellness ecosystem.
Its business includes:
- CULT fitness centres: Gyms and group workout facilities offering structured fitness programmes.
- Cult Neo: A gym format aimed at expanding access to fitness services.
- Cultgear: Fitness-related products and equipment.
- Digital fitness services: Online workouts, training programmes and related wellness offerings.
- Memberships: Subscription-based access to physical and digital fitness services.
A strong trademark helps a business protect its identity, build customer recognition and maintain consistency across its locations and products.
If ownership of a major trademark is successfully challenged, the consequences could extend beyond a legal dispute. It could affect licensing arrangements, brand usage, expansion plans and the valuation assumptions used by investors.
However, the current legal proceedings do not automatically prevent Cult.fit from continuing to use the brand. The outcome will depend on the courts’ findings and any subsequent orders.
Cult.fit’s Proposed ₹4,000 Crore IPO Faces Additional Scrutiny
The trademark challenge comes as Cult.fit prepares for its proposed public listing.
According to the draft IPO disclosures cited in the reports, the company is planning a public issue involving a fresh share sale of up to ₹950 crore and an offer for sale (OFS) of up to 17.86 crore shares by existing shareholders.
The overall IPO size has been estimated at approximately ₹4,000 crore.
| IPO component | Proposed details |
|---|---|
| Fresh issue | Up to ₹950 crore |
| Offer for sale | Up to 17.86 crore shares |
| Estimated total IPO size | Around ₹4,000 crore |
| Listing status | Proposed |
A fresh issue allows the company to raise new capital, while an OFS allows existing shareholders to sell part of their holdings.
The trademark dispute could become relevant to investors evaluating the company’s intellectual property, corporate structure and legal risks.
The final prospectus will be particularly important because it must provide accurate information about the company’s assets, subsidiaries, ownership rights and material legal proceedings.
Cult.fit has said that it has received final approval from SEBI on its draft red herring prospectus and has no further comments on the matter at this stage.
What the Legal Challenge Could Mean for Investors
The outcome of the dispute could influence how investors assess Cult.fit’s brand ownership and business risks.
There are several issues prospective shareholders may examine.
Trademark ownership: Investors will want clarity on the legal ownership of the CULT trademark and the validity of the documents used to transfer it.
Subsidiary structure: The company must clearly disclose which legal entity owns the trademark and how the parent company benefits from its use.
Potential litigation exposure: Ongoing proceedings can create legal expenses, uncertainty and possible restrictions depending on the outcome.
IPO disclosures: Investors will expect the final prospectus to explain the dispute and accurately describe the company’s intellectual property.
Brand valuation: Since CULT is a core business identity, any uncertainty around its ownership could affect how investors evaluate the company’s long-term commercial position.
The dispute does not mean that Cult.fit’s IPO has been cancelled or that its trademark ownership has been invalidated. It does, however, introduce another issue that investors may want clarified before making investment decisions.
The Bigger Picture
The Cult.fit trademark dispute highlights why intellectual property ownership and corporate documentation matter during a company’s transition from private ownership to public markets. A brand may be central to a company’s revenue, customer relationships and valuation, but investors also need clarity on which legal entity owns it and how those rights were acquired. Disagreements between founders over historical transactions can become particularly significant when a business prepares to list.
For India’s startup ecosystem, the case also underlines the importance of clear founder agreements, documented intellectual property transfers and accurate disclosures during acquisitions and restructuring. Cult.fit has denied the allegations, and the courts have not yet decided the ownership dispute. The legal outcome and the company’s final IPO disclosures will determine how much uncertainty remains around the CULT brand.
Looking Ahead
The next important dates are the November 16 hearing in the Bengaluru Commercial Court case and the December 2 proceedings before the Madras High Court. The courts will have to consider the competing claims over the 2017 assignment deeds and the validity of the trademark registration. Until those proceedings progress, the allegations of forgery remain disputed rather than established facts.
For Cult.fit, the immediate priority will be to address the legal challenge and ensure that its final IPO prospectus accurately explains the ownership of the CULT trademark and the pending proceedings. The proposed public offering remains a separate corporate process, but the dispute could become an important consideration for investors assessing the company’s brand assets, governance and legal risks.
SEO Metadata
SEO Title: Cult.fit Faces Fresh Legal Challenge Over CULT Trademark Ahead of IPO
Meta Description: The Madras High Court issued notice on a petition challenging Cult.fit’s CULT trademark ownership, adding legal scrutiny ahead of its proposed ₹4,000 crore IPO.
URL Slug: cultfit-cult-trademark-legal-challenge-ipo
Focus Keyphrase: Cult.fit CULT trademark dispute
Secondary Keywords: Cult.fit IPO, CULT trademark ownership, Deepak Poduval, Cult.fit legal challenge, Madras High Court trademark case, Cult.fit IPO disclosures
Get the day’s top stories in your inbox
One concise email. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
