Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	11. Contingencies In May 2016, Supply Company, LLC, (“Supply”), a former licensee of the Ed Hardy trademark, commenced an action against the Company and its affiliate, Hardy Way, LLC, (“Hardy Way” and together with the Company, the “Iconix Defendants”) seeking damages of $50 million, including punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs (the “Supply Litigation”). Supply alleges that Hardy Way breached the parties’ license agreement by failing to reimburse Supply for markdown reimbursement requests that Supply received from a certain retailer. Supply also alleges that the Company is liable for fraud because it made purported misstatements about the Company’s financials and the viability of the Ed Hardy trademark in order to induce Supply to enter into the license agreement and to induce Supply to enter into a separate agreement with a certain retailer. The Iconix Defendants are vigorously defending against the claims in the Supply Litigation, and have filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, which is awaiting Court decision. In addition, Hardy Way commenced an action against Kevin Yap (“Yap”), the principal of Supply, to enforce the terms of his guarantee of Supply’s obligations under the Supply-Hardy Way license agreement for the Ed Hardy trademark (the “Yap Litigation”). In response, Yap filed counterclaims against Hardy Way asserting two declaratory judgment claims seeking similar damages as in the Supply Litigation, including the reimbursement of Supply for losses allegedly suffered because of the markdown reimbursement requests, as well as rescission of the Supply-Hardy Way license agreement, other damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. Hardy Way is vigorously defending against the counterclaims in the Yap Litigation, and has filed a pre-discovery motion for summary judgment on its affirmative claim and to dismiss Yap’s counterclaims, which is awaiting Court decision. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcomes of the Supply Litigation or the Yap Litigation. 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 disclosed, on September 16, 2019, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) with the lead plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuit pending against it in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04860 (the “Class Action”). The settlement releases all claims asserted against the Company and the other named defendants party to the Stipulation in the Class Action without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them. The proposed settlement provides for a total settlement payment of $6.0 million, inclusive of administrative fees and fees for lead plaintiff’s counsel. All of the settlement amount was paid directly by the Company’s directors and officers liability insurance provider. On January 23, 2020, the settlement received court approval, which remains subject to customary appeal rights by interested parties. As previously disclosed, the Company received a formal order of investigation from the SEC staff in December 2015 and was contacted by the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”) in December 2018 regarding the same matters underlying the SEC’s investigation (together, the SDNY and SEC investigations, the “Government Investigations”). The Company has cooperated fully with the SEC and SDNY regarding this matter. As previously disclosed, on December 5, 2019, the Company reached an agreement with the SEC to resolve the SEC portion of the Investigation. As part of the settlement, which was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), the Company agreed to pay a civil penalty of $5.5 million. On the same day, the U.S. Attorney for the SDNY unsealed charges against the Company’s former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, as well as its former Chief Operating Officer (who subsequently plead guilty). The criminal trial of the Company’s former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in respect of this matter is set to begin on May 11, 2020. 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

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

11. Contingencies

In May 2016, Supply Company, LLC, (“Supply”), a former licensee of the Ed Hardy trademark, commenced an action against the Company and its affiliate, Hardy Way, LLC, (“Hardy Way” and together with the Company, the “Iconix Defendants”) seeking damages of $50 million, including punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs (the “Supply Litigation”). Supply alleges that Hardy Way breached the parties’ license agreement by failing to reimburse Supply for markdown reimbursement requests that Supply received from a certain retailer. Supply also alleges that the Company is liable for fraud because it made purported misstatements about the Company’s financials and the viability of the Ed Hardy trademark in order to induce Supply to enter into the license agreement and to induce Supply to enter into a separate agreement with a certain retailer. The Iconix Defendants are vigorously defending against the claims in the Supply Litigation, and have filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, which is awaiting Court decision. In addition, Hardy Way commenced an action against Kevin Yap (“Yap”), the principal of Supply, to enforce the terms of his guarantee of Supply’s obligations under the Supply-Hardy Way license agreement for the Ed Hardy trademark (the “Yap Litigation”). In response, Yap filed counterclaims against Hardy Way asserting two declaratory judgment claims seeking similar damages as in the Supply Litigation, including the reimbursement of Supply for losses allegedly suffered because of the markdown reimbursement requests, as well as rescission of the Supply-Hardy Way license agreement, other damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. Hardy Way is vigorously defending against the counterclaims in the Yap Litigation, and has filed a pre-discovery motion for summary judgment on its affirmative claim and to dismiss Yap’s counterclaims, which is awaiting Court decision. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcomes of the Supply Litigation or the Yap Litigation.

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 disclosed, on September 16, 2019, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) with the lead plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuit pending against it in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04860 (the “Class Action”). The settlement releases all claims asserted against the Company and the other named defendants party to the Stipulation in the Class Action without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them. The proposed settlement provides for a total settlement payment of $6.0 million, inclusive of administrative fees and fees for lead plaintiff’s counsel. All of the settlement amount was paid directly by the Company’s directors and officers liability insurance provider. On January 23, 2020, the settlement received court approval, which remains subject to customary appeal rights by interested parties.

As previously disclosed, the Company received a formal order of investigation from the SEC staff in December 2015 and was contacted by the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”) in December 2018 regarding the same matters underlying the SEC’s investigation (together, the SDNY and SEC investigations, the “Government Investigations”). The Company has cooperated fully with the SEC and SDNY regarding this matter. As previously disclosed, on December 5, 2019, the Company reached an agreement with the SEC to resolve the SEC portion of the Investigation. As part of the settlement, which was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), the Company agreed to pay a civil penalty of $5.5 million. On the same day, the U.S. Attorney for the SDNY unsealed charges against the Company’s former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, as well as its former Chief Operating Officer (who subsequently plead guilty). The criminal trial of the Company’s former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in respect of this matter is set to begin on May 11, 2020.

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.