Cult.fit, the fitness startup preparing for its public listing, is embroiled in a fresh legal challenge involving the ownership of the CULT trademark. The case, initiated by cofounder Deepak Poduval, raises allegations of forged documents and threatens to cloud the transparency of the brand’s provenance just before its IPO.
- Madras High Court opened proceedings on CULT trademark ownership dispute.
- Cofounder Deepak Poduval alleges forged transfer documents from 2017.
- Dispute forms part of wider legal conflict amidst IPO preparations.
What happened
Deepak Poduval, cofounder of the Bengaluru-based fitness company CULT, has filed a legal challenge against Cultfit Healthcare Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of Cult.fit, seeking cancellation of the CULT trademark registration. Poduval claims that the documents used to transfer ownership of the trademark to Cultfit Healthcare, dated 2017, were forged and filed a rectification petition that prompted the Madras High Court to issue a notice. Proceedings are ongoing, with Cultfit Healthcare allowed to respond by early December 2026.
In parallel, Poduval has initiated legal action in Bengaluru's Commercial Court to nullify the 2017 deeds on grounds of forgery. This conflict follows an earlier FIR against cofounder Rishabh Telang alleging criminal conspiracy and forgery in transferring assets and shares within the corporate structure. Telang denies wrongdoing, and the Karnataka High Court declined to stay the investigation.
Why it matters
The trademark dispute puts to the forefront questions about the legitimacy of intellectual property ownership within Cult.fit just as the company prepares for a public offering. The CULT brand is central to the company’s identity and valuation, and any uncertainty could impact investor confidence. Poduval emphasizes the importance of transparent disclosures regarding how the trademark was acquired, suggesting potential gaps in Cult.fit’s IPO filings.
This legal challenge also reflects deeper governance and founder disputes, which may complicate the market narrative around Cult.fit's growth story and business stability. Legal controversies involving core assets in startups can lead to delayed listings, valuation discounts, or regulatory scrutiny, affecting both the company and its investors.
What to watch next
The Madras High Court’s handling of the trademark cancellation petition and the Commercial Court’s judgment on the validity of the 2017 transfer deeds will be critical in determining the fate of the CULT trademark. Cultfit Healthcare’s response due by December 2, 2026, and the upcoming Bengaluru Commercial Court hearing scheduled for November 16, 2026, will provide important updates on the legal trajectory of this dispute.
Additionally, monitor any statements or revised disclosures from Cult.fit related to the ownership of the trademark in its IPO documentation. The outcome of these legal proceedings could influence the timing and terms of the company’s planned public offering, and broader market sentiment toward founder-driven conflicts in India's startup ecosystem.