Cult.fit, the fitness company preparing for a stock market listing, is facing a legal challenge over the ownership of the brand at the heart of its business.
The Madras High Court has issued notice on a petition seeking the cancellation of the CULT trademark registered to Cultfit Healthcare Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of Cult.fit Ltd, according to Entrepreneur India and BW Businessworld, which reported the dispute on Wednesday, November 11. The court issued notice on October 12 in the rectification petition, numbered OP(TM) No. 51 of 2026, and on November 5 adjourned the matter to December 2 to allow the registered owner to reply.
Who is challenging the brand?
The petition was filed by Deepak Poduval, who co-founded the original CULT fitness business in Bengaluru in 2015, according to Entrepreneur India. Poduval alleges that his signatures on the 2017 assignment deeds that transferred the brand to Cult.fit were forged, citing a privately commissioned forensic examination.
He says he was the first to apply for the "CULT – The Workout Station" trademark, in August 2015. Cultfit Healthcare filed a separate application in November 2016, claiming use of the mark since May 1, 2015, according to BW Businessworld.
"I believe public investors deserve complete transparency about how the company's most important brand was acquired," Poduval said, according to Entrepreneur India.
A second case
Poduval has also filed a suit in a commercial court in Bengaluru seeking a declaration that the 2017 deeds are void, according to BW Businessworld. That case is listed for November 16.
Cult.fit's response
A Cult.fit spokesperson said: "The matter is currently sub judice before Honourable Courts," according to BW Businessworld. The spokesperson added that the group has the necessary registrations and documentation, and that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has given final approval to its draft red herring prospectus.
Cult.fit denies the forgery allegation and says Poduval signed the deeds, which he disputes, according to Entrepreneur India.
The prospectus question
The dispute has also surfaced in Cult.fit's regulatory disclosures. Poduval filed a complaint with SEBI, and Cult.fit responded in writing on October 14, according to Entrepreneur India. In that response, the company acknowledged that its draft prospectus did not correctly describe trademark ownership, saying the marks are registered to Cultfit Healthcare rather than Cult.fit Ltd, and promised to correct the final prospectus. It described the CULT acquisition as "not material."
Poduval alleges that the draft prospectus does not name him and that the CULT acquisition deeds are not available for investor inspection, unlike the deed for Cult.fit's acquisition of Fitness First, according to Entrepreneur India.
Inc42 noted that if the challenge succeeds, Cult.fit could lose the right to use the trademark, and could face SEBI scrutiny because it has acknowledged that its draft prospectus did not correctly describe trademark ownership.
Why the brand matters
The CULT name is central to Cult.fit's business. The company operates hundreds of fitness centres under the CULT name, along with its Cult Neo gym format and Cultgear fitness products, according to BW Businessworld. The outcome of the dispute could affect the group's rights to use, license or transfer the contested trademarks.
Brand ownership is a fundamental issue for any consumer business, and particularly for one preparing to sell shares to the public. Investors in an IPO rely on the prospectus to accurately describe a company's assets, including its intellectual property.
Cult.fit's journey
Cult.fit, formerly known as CureFit, was founded in 2016 by Mukesh Bansal, the founder of fashion e-commerce company Myntra, and Ankit Nagori, a former Flipkart executive. The company acquired the original CULT gym business in Bengaluru and built it into a national chain of fitness centres, combining group workouts, gyms and digital fitness classes.
The company has raised funding from investors including Tata Digital, Temasek and others, and expanded aggressively before the Covid-19 pandemic, which forced gyms to close. It pivoted to online classes during lockdowns and has since rebuilt its offline business.
Cult.fit's planned IPO would make it one of India's first listed fitness companies, testing public market appetite for the sector.
A pattern of founder disputes
Disputes over brand ownership and founders' rights are not uncommon in India's startup ecosystem, particularly when early-stage businesses are acquired by larger companies and documentation is incomplete or contested. As startups prepare for IPOs, such disputes can resurface, since public listings bring greater scrutiny of a company's history and assets.
The case highlights the importance of clear documentation of intellectual property transfers during acquisitions, and of thorough legal due diligence before IPOs.
The IPO timeline
Cult.fit has received SEBI's approval for its draft prospectus, according to its spokesperson, and has not publicly announced a launch date for the offering. The company will need to file its final prospectus with the corrected trademark disclosures before launching the IPO.
It remains to be seen whether the trademark dispute will affect the timing of the offering. Companies sometimes proceed with listings while litigation is pending, disclosing the risks to investors, but significant disputes over core assets can make investors cautious.
India's fitness market
India's fitness market has grown rapidly as rising incomes, health awareness and urbanisation drive demand for gyms, fitness classes and wellness products. Cult.fit competes with independent gyms, international chains and digital fitness platforms. A successful IPO would provide capital for further expansion and a benchmark for the sector.
What investors should look for
For prospective IPO investors, the key questions will be how Cult.fit describes the dispute in its final prospectus, what risks it discloses, and whether it provides any contingency for the possibility of losing rights to the CULT trademark. Companies typically include such legal proceedings in a section on outstanding litigation and material developments.
Investors may also look at whether the company has registered alternative brands or trademarks and how dependent its business is on the CULT name, which is prominently displayed across its centres, app and products.
The dispute is also a reminder for founders of small businesses that are acquired by larger companies to keep careful records of the documents they sign, including any assignment of trademarks and other intellectual property.
What comes next
The Bengaluru commercial court will hear Poduval's suit on November 16, and the Madras High Court will take up the trademark petition on December 2. Investors will watch the outcome of these proceedings, the disclosures in Cult.fit's final prospectus and any response from SEBI, as the company prepares for its stock market debut.
