Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	12. Contingencies In July 2013, Signature Apparel Group LLC, referred to as Signature, filed an amended complaint in an adversary proceeding captioned Signature Apparel Group LLC v. ROC Fashions, LLC, et al., Adv. Pro. No. 11-02800-REG in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York that, among others, named as defendants the Company and Studio IP Holdings, LLC, referred to as Studio IP (the Company and Studio IP are collectively referred to as Iconix). The causes of action in the amended complaint relate to a series of events from September 2009 with respect to which Signature sought at least $8.8 million in damages from Iconix. In August 2017, the Bankruptcy Court rendered a decision in this matter. In that decision, the Court found that one of Signature’s principals must disgorge $2.05 million of the consulting fees that he received in breach of his fiduciary duties to Signature and that Iconix was jointly and severally liable for this amount, plus interest as applicable. The Court also found Iconix liable on the causes of action asserted against it in the amended complaint, including negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract (Studio IP only), fraud, and tortious interference with contract (the Company only). The Court ordered supplemental post-trial briefing related solely to the calculation of additional damages, if any, to be awarded to Signature. Signature now alleges damages of up to $70 million, plus counsel fees and interest as applicable. Iconix strongly disagrees with the basis for and amounts of damages claimed by Signature, and argued vigorously that no additional damages are warranted. On January 12, 2018, Signature filed an application with the Court for reimbursement of its counsel fees and expenses totaling approximately $4.2 million that it purportedly incurred in the adversary proceeding. Iconix vigorously opposed Signature’s application. Given the uncertainty of how the Bankruptcy Court will rule with respect to damages and counsel fees, Iconix cannot estimate the amount of additional damages, if any, at this time. On May 1, 2017, 3TAC, LLC, referred to as 3TAC, a former licensee of the Company, and West Loop South, LLC, referred to as West Loop (3TAC and West Loop collectively referred to as Plaintiffs), sued the Company, its affiliate, IP Holdings Unltd., LLC, referred to as IPHU, and the Company’s former CEO, Neil Cole (the Company, IPHU, and Cole are collectively referred to as the Iconix Parties), in the action captioned 3TAC, LLC and West Loop South, LLC v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc., and Neil Cole, Case No. 16-cv-08795-KBF-RWL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, tortious inference with contract and business relations, unjust enrichment, trade libel and prima facie tort relating to the Iconix Parties’ alleged breach of a Global License Agreement, as amended, between 3TAC and IPHU concerning intellectual property rights in and to the Marc Ecko brands, the Iconix Parties’ alleged interference with 3TAC’s performance thereunder, and the Iconix Parties’ alleged interference with a related sublicense between 3TAC and West Loop. On October 27, 2017, Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted the Iconix Parties’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment, trade libel and prima facie tort claims. Plaintiffs seek damages of up to $19 million for their remaining claims, plus counsel fees and interest. The Iconix Parties are vigorously defending against the remaining claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this matter. On November 1, 2017, Seth Gerszberg and EGRHC, LLC, collectively referred to as Plaintiffs, a successor in interest to Suchman, LLC, referred to as Suchman, a company wholly-owned by Gerszberg that entered into a joint venture with the Company pursuant to which they formed IP Holdings Unltd., LLC, referred to as IPHU, filed an action captioned Gerszberg and EGRHC, LLC v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc., IP Holdings Unltd, LLC and Neil Cole, Case No. 17-cv-08421-KBF-RWL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs seek in excess of $100 million for the Company’s, IPHU’s, and Neil Cole’s (collectively referred to as the Iconix Parties) alleged breach of IPHU’s Operating Agreement and related breaches of fiduciary duties, breach of an agreement pursuant to which the Company bought out Suchman’s interest in IPHU and fraudulent inducement into the same, and unjust enrichment. The core of Plaintiffs’ allegations concern the intellectual property rights in and to the Marc Ecko brands. The Iconix Parties are vigorously defending against the claims asserted by Plaintiffs. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this matter. In April 2016, New Rise Brands Holdings, LLC, referred to as New Rise, a former licensee of the Ecko Unlimited trademark, and Sichuan New Rise Import & Export Co. Ltd., referred to as Sichuan, the guarantor under New Rise's license agreement, commenced an action captioned New Rise Brands Holdings, LLC and Sichuan New Rise Import & Export Co. Ltd v. IP Holdings, LLC, et al., Index No. 652278/2016 in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County against the Company’s subsidiary, IP Holdings, LLC, referred to as IP Holdings, seeking damages of $15 million, plus punitive damages of $50 million, counsel fees and costs. Among other claims, New Rise and Sichuan allege improper termination of New Rise’s license agreement, fraud and misappropriation. IP Holdings is vigorously defending against the claims and has asserted counterclaims against New Rise and Sichuan. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this matter. Two shareholder derivative complaints captioned James v. Cuneo et al, Docket No. 1:16-cv-02212 and Ruthazer v. Cuneo et al, Docket No. 1:16-cv-04208 have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and three shareholder derivative complaints captioned De Filippis v. Cuneo et al. Index No. 650711/2016, Gold v. Cole et al, Index No. 53724/2016 and Rosenfeld v. Cuneo et al., Index No. 510427/2016 have been consolidated in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. 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 restatement of financial reports and certain employee departures. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of these matters. As previously announced, the Company has received a formal order of investigation from the SEC. The Company intends to continue to cooperate fully with the SEC. Three securities class actions have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-4860, against the Company and certain former officers and one current officer (the “Class Action”). The plaintiffs in the Class Action purport to represent a class of purchasers of the Company’s securities from February 22, 2012 to November 5, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the Company’s business operations and prospects. On October 25, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed by the Company and the individual defendants with leave to amend. On November 14, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. 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 these matters. 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, individually or in the aggregate, have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or future liquidity.

Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2018

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

12. Contingencies

In July 2013, Signature Apparel Group LLC, referred to as Signature, filed an amended complaint in an adversary proceeding captioned Signature Apparel Group LLC v. ROC Fashions, LLC, et al., Adv. Pro. No. 11-02800-REG in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York that, among others, named as defendants the Company and Studio IP Holdings, LLC, referred to as Studio IP (the Company and Studio IP are collectively referred to as Iconix). The causes of action in the amended complaint relate to a series of events from September 2009 with respect to which Signature sought at least $8.8 million in damages from Iconix. In August 2017, the Bankruptcy Court rendered a decision in this matter. In that decision, the Court found that one of Signature’s principals must disgorge $2.05 million of the consulting fees that he received in breach of his fiduciary duties to Signature and that Iconix was jointly and severally liable for this amount, plus interest as applicable. The Court also found Iconix liable on the causes of action asserted against it in the amended complaint, including negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract (Studio IP only), fraud, and tortious interference with contract (the Company only). The Court ordered supplemental post-trial briefing related solely to the calculation of additional damages, if any, to be awarded to Signature. Signature now alleges damages of up to $70 million, plus counsel fees and interest as applicable. Iconix strongly disagrees with the basis for and amounts of damages claimed by Signature, and argued vigorously that no additional damages are warranted. On January 12, 2018, Signature filed an application with the Court for reimbursement of its counsel fees and expenses totaling approximately $4.2 million that it purportedly incurred in the adversary proceeding. Iconix vigorously opposed Signature’s application. Given the uncertainty of how the Bankruptcy Court will rule with respect to damages and counsel fees, Iconix cannot estimate the amount of additional damages, if any, at this time.

On May 1, 2017, 3TAC, LLC, referred to as 3TAC, a former licensee of the Company, and West Loop South, LLC, referred to as West Loop (3TAC and West Loop collectively referred to as Plaintiffs), sued the Company, its affiliate, IP Holdings Unltd., LLC, referred to as IPHU, and the Company’s former CEO, Neil Cole (the Company, IPHU, and Cole are collectively referred to as the Iconix Parties), in the action captioned 3TAC, LLC and West Loop South, LLC v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc., and Neil Cole, Case No. 16-cv-08795-KBF-RWL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, tortious inference with contract and business relations, unjust enrichment, trade libel and prima facie tort relating to the Iconix Parties’ alleged breach of a Global License Agreement, as amended, between 3TAC and IPHU concerning intellectual property rights in and to the Marc Ecko brands, the Iconix Parties’ alleged interference with 3TAC’s performance thereunder, and the Iconix Parties’ alleged interference with a related sublicense between 3TAC and West Loop. On October 27, 2017, Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted the Iconix Parties’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment, trade libel and prima facie tort claims. Plaintiffs seek damages of up to $19 million for their remaining claims, plus counsel fees and interest. The Iconix Parties are vigorously defending against the remaining claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this matter.

On November 1, 2017, Seth Gerszberg and EGRHC, LLC, collectively referred to as Plaintiffs, a successor in interest to Suchman, LLC, referred to as Suchman, a company wholly-owned by Gerszberg that entered into a joint venture with the Company pursuant to which they formed IP Holdings Unltd., LLC, referred to as IPHU, filed an action captioned Gerszberg and EGRHC, LLC v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc., IP Holdings Unltd, LLC and Neil Cole, Case No. 17-cv-08421-KBF-RWL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs seek in excess of $100 million for the Company’s, IPHU’s, and Neil Cole’s (collectively referred to as the Iconix Parties) alleged breach of IPHU’s Operating Agreement and related breaches of fiduciary duties, breach of an agreement pursuant to which the Company bought out Suchman’s interest in IPHU and fraudulent inducement into the same, and unjust enrichment. The core of Plaintiffs’ allegations concern the intellectual property rights in and to the Marc Ecko brands. The Iconix Parties are vigorously defending against the claims asserted by Plaintiffs. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this matter.

In April 2016, New Rise Brands Holdings, LLC, referred to as New Rise, a former licensee of the Ecko Unlimited trademark, and Sichuan New Rise Import & Export Co. Ltd., referred to as Sichuan, the guarantor under New Rise's license agreement, commenced an action captioned New Rise Brands Holdings, LLC and Sichuan New Rise Import & Export Co. Ltd v. IP Holdings, LLC, et al., Index No. 652278/2016 in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County against the Company’s subsidiary, IP Holdings, LLC, referred to as IP Holdings, seeking damages of $15 million, plus punitive damages of $50 million, counsel fees and costs. Among other claims, New Rise and Sichuan allege improper termination of New Rise’s license agreement, fraud and misappropriation. IP Holdings is vigorously defending against the claims and has asserted counterclaims against New Rise and Sichuan. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this matter.

Two shareholder derivative complaints captioned James v. Cuneo et al, Docket No. 1:16-cv-02212 and Ruthazer v. Cuneo et al, Docket No. 1:16-cv-04208 have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and three shareholder derivative complaints captioned De Filippis v. Cuneo et al. Index No. 650711/2016, Gold v. Cole et al, Index No. 53724/2016 and Rosenfeld v. Cuneo et al., Index No. 510427/2016 have been consolidated in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. 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 restatement of financial reports and certain employee departures. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of these matters.

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

Three securities class actions have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-4860, against the Company and certain former officers and one current officer (the “Class Action”). The plaintiffs in the Class Action purport to represent a class of purchasers of the Company’s securities from February 22, 2012 to November 5, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the Company’s business operations and prospects. On October 25, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed by the Company and the individual defendants with leave to amend. On November 14, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. 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 these matters.

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, individually or in the aggregate, have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or future liquidity.