LITIGATION	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LITIGATION	LITIGATION Administrative Proceeding Mannatech Korea, Ltd. v. Busan Custom Office, Busan District Court, Korea On or before April 12, 2015, Mannatech Korea, Ltd. filed a suit against the Busan Custom Office (“BCO”) to challenge BCO’s method of calculation regarding its assessment notice issued on July 11, 2013. The assessment notice included an audit of the Company’s imported goods covering fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and required the Company to pay $1.0 million for this assessment, all of which was paid in January 2014. Both parties submitted a response to the Court’s inquiry on January 15, 2016. The final hearing for the case was held on May 26, 2016 where each party presented their respective arguments. The Court set the decision hearing on October 27, 2016, and the Court decided the case in the Company’s favor. However, on November 18, 2016, BCO filed an appeal to the Busan High Court. The first hearing occurred on March 31, 2017, and the second hearing occurred on April 21, 2017. The final hearing was held on June 2, 2017. The Court issued its decision on June 30, 2017 in favor of the BCO. The Company appealed this decision on August 24, 2017. The Company anticipates a final decision on the appeal by the first quarter of 2019. This matter remains open. Trademark Opposition - U.S. Patent and Trademark Office United States Trademark Opposition No. 91221493, Shaklee Corporation v. Mannatech, Incorporated re: UTH On April 15, 2015, the Company received notice that Shaklee Corporation (“Shaklee”) filed a Notice of Opposition to the Company’s trademark application for UTH (stylized as Ū^th) with the USPTO. On May 19, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the opposition and also filed a counterclaim seeking to cancel Shaklee’s registration of its YOUTH mark. On March 28, 2017, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the "TTAB") ruled on the 56(d) Motion, granting the Company’s motion in part to oblige Shaklee to answer the Company’s request for discovery related to Shaklee’s use or non-use of the YOUTH mark. The Company took the deposition of Shaklee’s designated witness on May 31, 2017. On June 29, 2017, the Company filed Applicant’s Opposition to Opposer’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Applicant’s Counterclaim for Abandonment and Applicant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim for Abandonment. Shaklee’s reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to the Company’s Counterclaim was filed on August 3, 2017. Each party’s respective motions for summary judgment were denied by the TTAB. The Company filed its expert disclosures on and the parties completed discovery on May 21, 2018. On October 2, 2018, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, under which Shaklee shall withdraw the Opposition and the Company may use the terms UTH, Ū_th, Ū^th, and ŪTH for non-medicated skincare preparation and cosmetics. A Joint Stipulation of Dismissal was filed on October 3, 2018, and on October 18, 2018, the TTAB granted the joint stipulated motions to dismiss. The Company considers this matter closed. Litigation in General The Company has incurred several claims in the normal course of business. The Company believes such claims can be resolved without any material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company maintains certain liability insurance; however, certain costs of defending lawsuits are not covered by or only partially covered by its insurance policies, including claims that are below insurance deductibles. Additionally, insurance carriers could refuse to cover certain claims, in whole or in part. The Company accrues costs to defend itself from litigation as they are incurred or as they become determinable. The outcome of litigation is uncertain, and despite management’s views of the merits of any litigation, or the reasonableness of the Company’s estimates and reserves, the Company’s financial statements could nonetheless be materially affected by an adverse judgment. The Company believes it has adequately reserved for the contingencies arising from current legal matters where an outcome was deemed to be probable, and the loss amount could be reasonably estimated.

LITIGATION

Administrative Proceeding

Mannatech Korea, Ltd. v. Busan Custom Office, Busan District Court, Korea

On or before April 12, 2015, Mannatech Korea, Ltd. filed a suit against the Busan Custom Office (“BCO”) to challenge BCO’s method of calculation regarding its assessment notice issued on July 11, 2013. The assessment notice included an audit of the Company’s imported goods covering fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and required the Company to pay $1.0 million for this assessment, all of which was paid in January 2014. Both parties submitted a response to the Court’s inquiry on January 15, 2016. The final hearing for the case was held on May 26, 2016 where each party presented their respective arguments. The Court set the decision hearing on October 27, 2016, and the Court decided the case in the Company’s favor. However, on November 18, 2016, BCO filed an appeal to the Busan High Court. The first hearing occurred on March 31, 2017, and the second hearing occurred on April 21, 2017. The final hearing was held on June 2, 2017. The Court issued its decision on June 30, 2017 in favor of the BCO. The Company appealed this decision on August 24, 2017. The Company anticipates a final decision on the appeal by the first quarter of 2019. This matter remains open.

Trademark Opposition - U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

United States Trademark Opposition No. 91221493, Shaklee Corporation v. Mannatech, Incorporated re: UTH

On April 15, 2015, the Company received notice that Shaklee Corporation (“Shaklee”) filed a Notice of Opposition to the Company’s trademark application for UTH (stylized as Ū^th) with the USPTO. On May 19, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the opposition and also filed a counterclaim seeking to cancel Shaklee’s registration of its YOUTH mark.

On March 28, 2017, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the "TTAB") ruled on the 56(d) Motion, granting the Company’s motion in part to oblige Shaklee to answer the Company’s request for discovery related to Shaklee’s use or non-use of the YOUTH mark. The Company took the deposition of Shaklee’s designated witness on May 31, 2017. On June 29, 2017, the Company filed Applicant’s Opposition to Opposer’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Applicant’s Counterclaim for Abandonment and Applicant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim for Abandonment. Shaklee’s reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to the Company’s Counterclaim was filed on August 3, 2017. Each party’s respective motions for summary judgment were denied by the TTAB. The Company filed its expert disclosures on and the parties completed discovery on May 21, 2018. On October 2, 2018, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, under which Shaklee shall withdraw the Opposition and the Company may use the terms UTH, Ū_th, Ū^th, and ŪTH for non-medicated skincare preparation and cosmetics. A Joint Stipulation of Dismissal was filed on October 3, 2018, and on October 18, 2018, the TTAB granted the joint stipulated motions to dismiss. The Company considers this matter closed.

Litigation in General

The Company has incurred several claims in the normal course of business. The Company believes such claims can be resolved without any material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The Company maintains certain liability insurance; however, certain costs of defending lawsuits are not covered by or only partially covered by its insurance policies, including claims that are below insurance deductibles. Additionally, insurance carriers could refuse to cover certain claims, in whole or in part. The Company accrues costs to defend itself from litigation as they are incurred or as they become determinable.

The outcome of litigation is uncertain, and despite management’s views of the merits of any litigation, or the reasonableness of the Company’s estimates and reserves, the Company’s financial statements could nonetheless be materially affected by an adverse judgment. The Company believes it has adequately reserved for the contingencies arising from current legal matters where an outcome was deemed to be probable, and the loss amount could be reasonably estimated.