Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
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 filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. 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 filed a pre-discovery motion for summary judgment on its affirmative claim and to dismiss Yap’s counterclaims. On August 10, 2020, the Court issued a consolidated decision (the “Decision”) resolving the Iconix Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Supply Litigation and Hardy Way’s motion for summary judgment and to dismiss counterclaims in the Yap Litigation. In the Supply Litigation, the Court granted the Iconix Defendants’ motion to dismiss in all respects, except one, and denied Supply’s cross-motion for leave to amend its complaint. As a result of the Decision, the only claim that remains in the Supply Litigation is Supply’s claim of fraudulent inducement based on the Iconix Defendants’ purported misstatements about the Company’s financials and the viability of the Ed Hardy trademark. In the Yap Litigation, the Court denied Hardy Way’s motion for pre-discovery summary judgment on its affirmative claim as premature because of Yap’s allegation that he was fraudulently induced into entering into the guarantee by Hardy Way’s purported misstatements about the Company’s financials and the viability of the Ed Hardy trademark. The Court dismissed Yap’s counterclaims related to the markdown reimbursement request and denied Yap’s cross-motion for leave to amend his answer to assert additional defenses. As a result of the Decision, the claims that remain in the Yap Litigation are Hardy Way’s affirmative claim against Yap on his guarantee and Yap’s counterclaim for declaratory judgment based on Hardy Way’s purported misstatements about the Company’s financials and the viability of the Ed Hardy trademark. The Decision is subject to normal appellate rights of all parties. The Iconix Defendants will continue to vigorously defend the Supply Litigation and the Yap Litigation. 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. 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, 2020

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 filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. 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 filed a pre-discovery motion for summary judgment on its affirmative claim and to dismiss Yap’s counterclaims.

On August 10, 2020, the Court issued a consolidated decision (the “Decision”) resolving the Iconix Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Supply Litigation and Hardy Way’s motion for summary judgment and to dismiss counterclaims in the Yap Litigation. In the Supply Litigation, the Court granted the Iconix Defendants’ motion to dismiss in all respects, except one, and denied Supply’s cross-motion for leave to amend its complaint. As a result of the Decision, the only claim that remains in the Supply Litigation is Supply’s claim of fraudulent inducement based on the Iconix Defendants’ purported misstatements about the Company’s financials and the viability of the Ed Hardy trademark. In the Yap Litigation, the Court denied Hardy Way’s motion for pre-discovery summary judgment on its affirmative claim as premature because of Yap’s allegation that he was fraudulently induced into entering into the guarantee by Hardy Way’s purported misstatements about the Company’s financials and the viability of the Ed Hardy trademark. The Court dismissed Yap’s counterclaims related to the markdown reimbursement request and denied Yap’s cross-motion for leave to amend his answer to assert additional defenses. As a result of the Decision, the claims that remain in the Yap Litigation are Hardy Way’s affirmative claim against Yap on his guarantee and Yap’s counterclaim for declaratory judgment based on Hardy Way’s purported misstatements about the Company’s financials and the viability of the Ed Hardy trademark. The Decision is subject to normal appellate rights of all parties.

The Iconix Defendants will continue to vigorously defend the Supply Litigation and the Yap Litigation. 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.

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.