Madras High Court Issues Notice on Plea to Cancel CULT Trademark Registration Ahead of Cult.fit IPO
Madras High Court issues notice in trademark cancellation case; Cult.fit acknowledges discrepancy in brand ownership disclosure in draft IPO prospectus
The Madras High Court has issued notice on a petition seeking cancellation of the CULT trademark registration held by a subsidiary of Cult.fit Ltd, bringing a legal challenge to the ownership of the flagship CULT trademark. Thus, raising questions about the company’s right to the brand ahead of its proposed initial public offering (IPO).
Deepak Poduval, who co-founded the original CULT fitness business in Bengaluru in 2015, has filed a petition before the Madras High Court seeking the cancellation of the CULT trademark registration held by Cultfit Healthcare Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of Cult.fit Ltd.
The court issued notice on 12 October 2026 in the rectification petition (OP(TM) No. 51 of 2026). On 5 November, it adjourned the case to 2 December 2026 so the registered owner could file its reply.
Poduval has also filed a suit before the Commercial Court in Bengaluru to have the 2017 deeds that purportedly transferred the brand declared void on the basis of forgery of the documents. That suit is next listed on 16 November 2026.
Cult.fit acknowledges trademark ownership discrepancy in IPO filing
In a written response dated 14 October 2026 to Poduval’s complaint to SEBI, Cult.fit acknowledged that its draft IPO prospectus did not correctly describe the ownership of the CULT trademarks. The company confirmed that the trademarks are registered in the name of its subsidiary, Cultfit Healthcare Pvt Ltd, rather than Cult.fit Ltd itself, and undertook to correct the disclosure in its final prospectus. The subsidiary’s trademark registration is now being challenged in court. The company has also called the CULT acquisition “not material”: the draft prospectus does not name it, and while the deed for Fitness First, another brand the group bought, is open to investors for inspection, the deeds for CULT, the brand the company is named after, are not.
Dispute over ownership of the CULT brand
Poduval was the first to apply for the “CULT – The Workout Station” trademark, in August 2015. Cultfit Healthcare applied in November 2016, claiming use from 1 May 2015, the same first-use date as Poduval’s application. When the Registry objected, citing Poduval’s mark, it did not produce the deeds. It claimed instead to be the prior user and owner in its own right.
Poduval alleges that the signatures on the 2017 assignment deeds are forged, and a privately obtained forensic examination supports this. Cult.fit has denied the allegations, stating that Poduval signed the deeds. Poduval disputes this.
Deepak Poduval, co-founder of the original CULT business, said: “I helped create CULT and applied for its trademark in 2015 in my name. Today, the brand is at the centre of a company preparing for an IPO, yet the very documents being used to establish its ownership carry signatures I maintain are not mine and have been forged. This is about something fundamental: who actually owns the CULT brand? I believe public investors deserve complete transparency about how the company’s most important brand was acquired.”
Potential implications for Cult.fit
According to its draft prospectus, hundreds of fitness centres operate under the CULT name, and the brand also runs through the Cult Neo gyms and the Cultgear products business. If the challenge succeeds, it could affect the group’s trademark rights and its ability to use, license or transfer the brand.
Poduval is represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Promod Nair, along with Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys (trademark matters) and Aretha Legal (criminal matter).