Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 27, 2012
CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
Contingencies	CONTINGENCIES Following the announcement of the Company's merger agreement with Parlux Inc. on December 23, 2011, several putative class action complaints were filed against the Company, Parlux Inc., the Parlux Inc. directors, and certain other related parties in state courts in Florida and Delaware. With the exception of the following, all such cases were dismissed or abandoned before the end of the quarter ended October 27, 2012. As previously disclosed on January 31, 2012, a putative class action, captioned as Jose Dias v. Fredrick E. Purches, et al., (Case Number 7199 VCG) was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware on behalf of a purported stockholder of Parlux. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the merger based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Parlux board in negotiating and approving the merger agreement, the alleged inadequacy of the merger consideration and Parlux Inc.'s alleged failure to make material disclosures relating to the merger, and sought damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Court ordered Parlux Inc. and the Company to file with the SEC certain additional information about the process followed by the financial advisors to Parlux Inc.'s board of directors, which both companies did on April 6, 2012. The Court did not enjoin the Parlux Inc. stockholder meeting, did not enjoin the consummation of the merger, and did not grant any other relief. The defendants moved to dismiss the action, which the plaintiff did not oppose. Parlux Inc. and its former directors then sought sanctions and attorneys' fees against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff sought an award of $500,000 in attorneys' fees. On October 1, 2012 the Court issued a memorandum opinion in which it (i) denied the Parlux Inc. defendants' request for sanctions and attorneys' fees, (ii) granted attorney's fees to the plaintiff in the amount of $266,667 and (iii) granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. On November 5, 2012, the Court entered an order consistent with its memorandum opinion and dismissed the action with prejudice as to plaintiff Dias and without prejudice as to the alleged class of plaintiffs. The Company is involved in various legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. Management cannot presently predict the outcome of these or any of the above matters, although management believes, based in part on the advice of counsel, that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a materially adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Oct. 27, 2012

CONTINGENCIES

Following the announcement of the Company's merger agreement with Parlux Inc. on December 23, 2011, several putative class action complaints were filed against the Company, Parlux Inc., the Parlux Inc. directors, and certain other related parties in state courts in Florida and Delaware. With the exception of the following, all such cases were dismissed or abandoned before the end of the quarter ended October 27, 2012.

As previously disclosed on January 31, 2012, a putative class action, captioned as Jose Dias v. Fredrick E. Purches, et al., (Case Number 7199 VCG) was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware on behalf of a purported stockholder of Parlux. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the merger based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Parlux board in negotiating and approving the merger agreement, the alleged inadequacy of the merger consideration and Parlux Inc.'s alleged failure to make material disclosures relating to the merger, and sought damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Court ordered Parlux Inc. and the Company to file with the SEC certain additional information about the process followed by the financial advisors to Parlux Inc.'s board of directors, which both companies did on April 6, 2012. The Court did not enjoin the Parlux Inc. stockholder meeting, did not enjoin the consummation of the merger, and did not grant any other relief. The defendants moved to dismiss the action, which the plaintiff did not oppose. Parlux Inc. and its former directors then sought sanctions and attorneys' fees against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff sought an award of $500,000 in attorneys' fees. On October 1, 2012 the Court issued a memorandum opinion in which it (i) denied the Parlux Inc. defendants' request for sanctions and attorneys' fees, (ii) granted attorney's fees to the plaintiff in the amount of $266,667 and (iii) granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. On November 5, 2012, the Court entered an order consistent with its memorandum opinion and dismissed the action with prejudice as to plaintiff Dias and without prejudice as to the alleged class of plaintiffs.

The Company is involved in various legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. Management cannot presently predict the outcome of these or any of the above matters, although management believes, based in part on the advice of counsel, that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a materially adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.