Cult.fit Faces Madras High Court Plea To Cancel CULT Trademark Over Alleged Forgery

The Madras High Court has issued notice on a petition seeking cancellation of the CULT trademark registration held by Cultfit Healthcare, a subsidiary of the IPO-bound fitness company Cult.fit.

The Cult.fit rectification petition was filed by Deepak Poduval, who co-founded the original CULT fitness business in Bengaluru in 2015.

What the Petition Alleges

Poduval has alleged that the documents used to establish Cultfit Healthcare’s ownership of the brand were forged.

Read More: Hundo Pizza Raises Rs 7.5 Cr From Titan Capital In First Institutional Round

BusinessRazorpay Gets SEBI Nod For Rs 6,000 Cr IPO At $5 Bn ValuationBusinessCarlsberg India Files Updated IPO Prospectus For 86.42 Million Shares

The court issued notice on 12 October. At a hearing on 5 November, it adjourned the matter to 2 December to let Cultfit Healthcare file its response.

Read More: Gaurav Munjal Steps Down As Unacademy CEO; Akhilendra Kumar Takes Over

He has also approached the Commercial Court in Bengaluru, asking it to declare void the 2017 deeds that purportedly assigned the CULT brand to Cultfit Healthcare. He alleges his signatures on those deeds were forged. That case is next listed for 16 November.

The Timeline

The dispute goes back to August 2015, when Poduval applied to register the “CULT – The Workout Station” trademark.

Cultfit Healthcare filed its own application in November 2016, claiming use of the brand from 1 May 2015, the same first-use date given in Poduval’s application.

For Cult.fit, two applications claiming the same first-use date for the same mark is the core of the dispute. Whoever is recorded as the prior user gets the registration.

Why It Matters for the IPO

For Cult.fit, a public listing is in preparation. A live trademark dispute is the kind of item that appears in the risk factors section of a red herring prospectus.

For Cult.fit, brand ownership matters more for a consumer fitness company than for most businesses. The name is the product. Cult.fit runs fitness centres, group classes and an app, and all three carry the CULT identity.

Adverse findings before listing would force disclosure. Findings after listing would be a disclosure event for public shareholders.

The Legal Question

For Cult.fit, the case turns on documentary evidence, not on who built the business that carries the name today.

If the 2017 assignment deeds are found to be valid, Cultfit Healthcare’s ownership stands and the petition fails. If the signatures are found to be forged, the assignment collapses and the entire chain of title needs to be re-established.

That is why the Bengaluru suit against the deeds runs in parallel with the Madras rectification petition. The civil court decides whether the assignment is valid; the High Court decides whether the registration survives.

Trademark rectification cases in India move slowly, and interim orders rarely settle the question of ownership.

That timeline means the dispute could outlast the listing itself. Is why disclosure in the prospectus matters more than an early court win.

Cult.fit has built its brand around the CULT name across gyms, group classes and its app, so the mark is central to every marketing rupee it spends.

The company has not publicly commented on the specifics of the petition. Its filings will be the first detailed response.

Investors in the IPO will read the trademark question as a governance issue, not just a legal one, which raises the cost of getting it wrong.

What to Watch

Three dates matter. The 16 November listing in Bengaluru and the 2 December hearing in Chennai will show how quickly the courts are moving.

The second thing to watch is whether Cult.fit discloses the dispute in its IPO filings. Omission is a bigger risk than the case itself.

The third is settlement. Trademark disputes between founders of the same original business are usually resolved commercially. A settlement before listing would be the cleanest outcome for everyone involved.