Cult.fit Faces CULT Trademark Dispute: How Could It Affect the IPO?

Cult.fit’sproposed ₹4,000 crore IPO has run into a fresh legal challenge over the ownership of its flagship CULT trademark. Deepak Poduval, who co-founded the original CULT fitness business in Bengaluru, has approached the Madras High Court seeking cancellation of the trademark registration held by Cultfit Healthcare, a subsidiary of Cult.fit Ltd.

The court issued notice in the case on October 12, 2026. At the hearing on November 5, it gave the company time to file its response and scheduled the next hearing for December 2.

Poduval alleges that the documents used to transfer the CULT brand to Cultfit Healthcare in 2017 contain forged signatures. Cult.fit denies the allegation and maintains that it has the necessary ownership documents and trademark registrations.

But this is more than a disagreement between former business partners. The CULT name is central to Cult.fit’s fitness business. So, what exactly is the dispute, how did it begin, and could it affect the company’s IPO?

The Story Behind the CULT Trademark Dispute

The dispute goes back to 2015, when Deepak Poduval and Rishabh Telang started the original CULT fitness business in Bengaluru.

Here is how the ownership dispute developed:

• 2015: Poduval applied for the trademark ‘CULT - The Workout Station’ in his name.
• 2016: Mukesh Bansal and his team built Curefit, which later acquired a controlling stake in the original CULT business.
• November 2016: Cultfit Healthcare, a company within the Cult.fit group, filed its own application for the CULT trademark, claiming that it had been using the brand since May 1, 2015.
• 2017: The CULT brand name was officially handed over from the original business to Cultfit Healthcare through legal documents.
• 2026: Poduval challenged the 2017 transfer, alleging that his signatures on the assignment documents were forged.

The disagreement is about whether the 2017 documents legally transferred the trademark to Cultfit Healthcare.

Source: Inc42 report, Cult.fit DRHP

What Exactly Is the Fight Over?

There are two competing positions.

Poduval says he originally applied for the CULT trademark in 2015 and never signed the documents transferring it to Cultfit Healthcare. He has also submitted a report from a forensic expert that, according to him, shows that the signatures were forged.

Cult.fit, on the other hand, denies the forgery allegations. It maintains that the documents were signed, the necessary approvals were obtained and the brand was legally transferred.

The dispute has now reached two courts through separate proceedings.

Poduval has approached the Bengaluru Commercial Court, seeking to have the 2017 assignment deeds declared invalid.

Separately, he has approached the Madras High Court, seeking cancellation of the CULT trademark registration held by Cultfit Healthcare.

The two cases deal with connected but different questions: whether the documents transferring the brand are valid and whether the existing trademark registration should continue.

What Has the CULT Trademark Dispute Got to Do With Cult.fit’s IPO?

The dispute has become particularly important because Cult.fit is preparing to enter the stock market.

The company filed its Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) with SEBI in July 2026, proposing to raise up to ₹950 crore through a fresh issue, alongside an offer for sale (OFS) of up to 17.86 crore shares by existing shareholders. The overall IPO size has been reported at around ₹4,000 crore.

Investors unfamiliar with these terms can understand the difference through our guide to types of IPOs, including fresh issue and OFS.

The trademark issue also surfaced in a complaint made to SEBI by Poduval.

In its written response dated October 14, Cult.fit acknowledged that its DRHP had incorrectly described the ownership of the CULT trademarks, as per reports.

The prospectus had identified Cult.fit Ltd as the owner. The company clarified that the trademarks are actually registered in the name of Cultfit Healthcare Pvt Ltd, its subsidiary, and undertook to correct the disclosure in its final prospectus.

For investors who want to understand how such information is presented, our guide on how to read a DRHP explains the important sections of an IPO prospectus.

This distinction matters because Cult.fit Ltd is the company whose shares investors will buy in the IPO, while Cultfit Healthcare is the subsidiary that holds the trademark registration.

Owning a trademark through a subsidiary is not automatically a problem. However, investors need clarity on whether the subsidiary has valid ownership and whether the parent company has the necessary rights to use the brand across its business.

Cult.fit has also reportedly described the purchase of the CULT brand as ‘not material’. However, the brand has become an important part of its business today. This raises a question: even if the brand was not worth much when it was acquired, does that mean it is not important to the company now?

How Big Could the Impact Be on Cult.fit’s Business?

The importance of the dispute becomes clearer when we look at how widely the CULT brand is used.

According to the company's IPO disclosures, Cult.fit operated 708 fitness centres across 77 cities as of March 31, 2026. Its brand ecosystem also includes Cult Neo gyms and Cultgear products.

This means the CULT identity is not limited to one gym or one product. It is part of how the company attracts customers, builds recognition and expands its fitness business.

If the trademark challenge eventually succeeds, it could affect the group's rights to use, license or transfer the contested trademarks. Depending on the court's decision and any arrangements reached, the company could face additional legal costs, restrictions on brand use or the expense of changing its branding.

However, this does not mean that Cult.fit will automatically have to shut its gyms or change its name. The case is still pending, and its outcome and practical consequences remain uncertain.

What Should IPO Investors Watch Out For?

For investors, the immediate concern is not whether Cult.fit will lose the CULT brand. No such conclusion has been reached.

The bigger issue is whether the company can establish a clear and legally valid ownership trail for a brand that supports its business.

Investors should watch three developments:

1. The court proceedings: The Bengaluru Commercial Court is scheduled to hear the challenge to the 2017 assignment deeds on November 16, while the Madras High Court has listed the trademark case for December 2, 2026.
2. The final prospectus: Cult.fit has promised to correct the trademark ownership disclosure. Investors should check how the final prospectus explains the ownership structure and pending cases.
3. The company's legal position: Further details about the 2017 transfer documents and the company's response to the allegations could help investors assess the strength of its ownership claim.

Investors can also refer to our 7-parameter framework for analysing an IPO to understand why legal risks, disclosures and business fundamentals should all be considered before making an investment decision.

The Bottom Line

Cult.fit has built a large fitness business around a recognisable brand. But as it prepares to enter the stock market, the ownership of that very brand is being challenged.

The allegations of forgery remain disputed, and the courts are yet to decide the matter. Therefore, it would be premature to assume that Cult.fit will lose its trademark rights.

For IPO investors, the key question is whether the company can provide sufficient clarity on how it acquired the CULT brand and establish that its rights over the trademark are legally secure. Its financial performance may show how well the business is doing today, but the strength of the legal ownership behind its brand is another important part of the investment decision.