Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	9. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings In July 2013, Signature Apparel Group LLC, referred to as the Debtor, filed an amended complaint in an adversary proceeding captioned Signature Apparel Group LLC v. ROC Fashions, LLC, et al., United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, Adv. Pro. No. 11-02800 in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York that, among others, named Studio IP Holdings LLC, referred to as Studio IP, and the Company (Studio IP and the Company are collectively referred to as Iconix), as defendants. In the amended complaint, the Debtor asserts that Iconix was complicit in an alleged conspiracy to pay $2.8 million to Debtor’s principals. The Debtor also alleges that ROC Fashions LLC paid a $6 million fee to Iconix for a license, and asserts that those funds should be returned to the Debtor as well. In total, the Debtor is seeking at least $8.8 million in damages from Iconix. Iconix is vigorously defending against the claims, and the trial on this matter concluded in March 2016. The Company is currently awaiting the Bankruptcy Court’s determination on the matter and is unable to estimate its ultimate outcome. In December 2015, Anthony L&S, LLC, referred to as ALS, the licensee of the Pony and related trademarks, commenced an action captioned Anthony L&S, LLC v. US Pony Holdings, LLC and Iconix Brand Group, Inc., Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Index No. 654199/2015 in New York State Supreme Court against the Company and its subsidiary, US Pony Holdings, LLC, referred to as Pony, seeking damages of $30 million, plus punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. ALS alleges that Pony breached the parties’ license agreement by failing to comply with its marketing obligations. ALS also alleges that Pony and the Company are liable for fraud because Pony and the Company made purported misstatements about their marketing intentions/efforts. The Company and Pony intend to vigorously defend against the claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this legal matter. In January 2016, ALS’s affiliate, Anthony L&S Athletics, LLC, referred to as Anthony Athletics, commenced an action captioned Anthony L&S Athletics, LLC v. US Pony Holdings, LLC and Iconix Brand Group, Inc., Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No. 11867 in the Chancery Court in the State of Delaware against the Company and Pony. Based primarily on the same allegations as in the New York action, Anthony Athletics, the Company’s joint venture partner in Pony, seeks a judicial dissolution of Pony, as well as $30 million in damages resulting from the Company’s purported breach of the Pony operating agreement and the failure to market the brands. The Company and Pony intend to vigorously defend against the claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this legal matter. Three shareholder derivative complaints were recently filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County, and the Southern District of New York, respectively, captioned De Filippis v. Cuneo et al Index No. 650711/2016, Gold v. Cole et al, and James v. Cuneo et al, Docket No. lil6-cv-02212. The complaints name the Company as a nominal defendant and assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, insider trading and unjust enrichment against certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers arising out of the Company's recent restatement of financial reports and certain employee departures. The defendants intend to move to dismiss for failure to make a demand on the Board of the Company as required by Delaware law. As previously announced, the Company has received a formal order of investigation from the SEC. The Company intends to cooperate fully with the SEC. Three securities class actions, respectively captioned Lazaro v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04981-PGG, Niksich v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al. , Docket No. 1:15-cv-04860-PGG and Haverhill Retirement System v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al Docket No. 1:15 – cv 06658, are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain former officers and one current officer (each, a “Class Action” and, together, the “Class Actions”). The plaintiffs in the Class Actions purport to represent a class of purchasers of the Company’s securities from February 20, 2013 to August 7, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the Company’s business operations and prospects. The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this legal matter. From time to time, the Company is also made a party to litigation incurred in the normal course of business. In addition, in connection with litigation commenced against licensees for non-payment of royalties, certain licensees have asserted unsubstantiated counterclaims against the Company. While any litigation has an element of uncertainty, the Company believes that the final outcome of any of these routine matters will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or future liquidity.

9. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

In July 2013, Signature Apparel Group LLC, referred to as the Debtor, filed an amended complaint in an adversary proceeding captioned Signature Apparel Group LLC v. ROC Fashions, LLC, et al., United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, Adv. Pro. No. 11-02800 in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York that, among others, named Studio IP Holdings LLC, referred to as Studio IP, and the Company (Studio IP and the Company are collectively referred to as Iconix), as defendants. In the amended complaint, the Debtor asserts that Iconix was complicit in an alleged conspiracy to pay $2.8 million to Debtor’s principals. The Debtor also alleges that ROC Fashions LLC paid a $6 million fee to Iconix for a license, and asserts that those funds should be returned to the Debtor as well. In total, the Debtor is seeking at least $8.8 million in damages from Iconix. Iconix is vigorously defending against the claims, and the trial on this matter concluded in March 2016. The Company is currently awaiting the Bankruptcy Court’s determination on the matter and is unable to estimate its ultimate outcome.

In December 2015, Anthony L&S, LLC, referred to as ALS, the licensee of the Pony and related trademarks, commenced an action captioned Anthony L&S, LLC v. US Pony Holdings, LLC and Iconix Brand Group, Inc., Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Index No. 654199/2015 in New York State Supreme Court against the Company and its subsidiary, US Pony Holdings, LLC, referred to as Pony, seeking damages of $30 million, plus punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. ALS alleges that Pony breached the parties’ license agreement by failing to comply with its marketing obligations. ALS also alleges that Pony and the Company are liable for fraud because Pony and the Company made purported misstatements about their marketing intentions/efforts. The Company and Pony intend to vigorously defend against the claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this legal matter.

In January 2016, ALS’s affiliate, Anthony L&S Athletics, LLC, referred to as Anthony Athletics, commenced an action captioned Anthony L&S Athletics, LLC v. US Pony Holdings, LLC and Iconix Brand Group, Inc., Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No. 11867 in the Chancery Court in the State of Delaware against the Company and Pony. Based primarily on the same allegations as in the New York action, Anthony Athletics, the Company’s joint venture partner in Pony, seeks a judicial dissolution of Pony, as well as $30 million in damages resulting from the Company’s purported breach of the Pony operating agreement and the failure to market the brands. The Company and Pony intend to vigorously defend against the claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this legal matter.

Three shareholder derivative complaints were recently filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County, and the Southern District of New York, respectively, captioned De Filippis v. Cuneo et al Index No. 650711/2016, Gold v. Cole et al, and James v. Cuneo et al, Docket No. lil6-cv-02212. The complaints name the Company as a nominal defendant and assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, insider trading and unjust enrichment against certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers arising out of the Company's recent restatement of financial reports and certain employee departures. The defendants intend to move to dismiss for failure to make a demand on the Board of the Company as required by Delaware law.

As previously announced, the Company has received a formal order of investigation from the SEC. The Company intends to cooperate fully with the SEC.

Three securities class actions, respectively captioned Lazaro v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04981-PGG, Niksich v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al. , Docket No. 1:15-cv-04860-PGG and Haverhill Retirement System v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al Docket No. 1:15 – cv 06658, are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain former officers and one current officer (each, a “Class Action” and, together, the “Class Actions”). The plaintiffs in the Class Actions purport to represent a class of purchasers of the Company’s securities from February 20, 2013 to August 7, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the Company’s business operations and prospects. The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this legal matter.

From time to time, the Company is also made a party to litigation incurred in the normal course of business. In addition, in connection with litigation commenced against licensees for non-payment of royalties, certain licensees have asserted unsubstantiated counterclaims against the Company. While any litigation has an element of uncertainty, the Company believes that the final outcome of any of these routine matters will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or future liquidity.