Company: CELH
Filing Date: 2025-08-08
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001341766-25-000104
Chunk: 45

Company: Celsius Holdings, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-08-08
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 1
Chunk 45
---
 Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)June 30, 2025(Tabular dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)

The Company believed that the jury verdict was not supported by the facts of the case or applicable law and was the result of significant trial error, and there were strong grounds for appeal. The Company filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal (“DCA”) for the State of Florida on February 21, 2023. By order dated December 11, 2024, the Fourth DCA granted the Company’s requested relief, in part, by vacating the amount of the jury’s verdict and directing a retrial on that issue, while affirming the jury’s finding of liability. On December 19, 2024, the Company requested the DCA rehear the appeal, and on February 6, 2025, the DCA denied that rehearing request. On February 28, 2025, the Company filed a Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. The Company intends to continue to vigorously challenge the judgment through the appeal processes.As a result of the February 6, 2025 decision, the Company has estimated a range of possible outcomes between $56.9 million and $99.3 million, inclusive of interest and fees. The Company accrued a liability at the low end of the range in the amount of $56.9 million, reflected in accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2025. The ultimate amount of the judgement that the Company may be required to pay will also include interest incurred between June 30, 2025 and the payment date, and could be materially different than the amount the Company has accrued. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of this matter.Eniva Trademark Litigation Concerning Vibe-Formative MarksOn March 20, 2025, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against Eniva USA, Inc. (“Eniva”), seeking a declaration that the Company's use and registration of various VIBE-formative marks do not infringe Eniva’s trademark rights. The dispute follows proceedings filed by Eniva at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, alleging that the Company's marks are likely to cause confusion with its own VIBE-registered mark used on liquid dietary supplements.On April 10, 2025, Eniva filed its answer and