Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Nov. 02, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The Company leases its showrooms and retail store locations under operating lease agreements expiring on various dates through September 2031. Some of these leases require the Company to make periodic payments for property taxes, utilities and common area operating expenses. Certain retail store leases provide for rents based upon the minimum annual rental amount and a percentage of annual sales volume, generally ranging from 3% to 12%, when specific sales volumes are exceeded. Some leases include lease incentives, rent abatements and fixed rent escalations, which are amortized and recorded over the initial lease term on a straight-line basis. The Company also leases some of its equipment under operating lease agreements expiring at various dates through October 2018. As discussed in further detail in Note 9, the Company leases a building in Florence, Italy under a capital lease.

Litigation

On May 6, 2009, Gucci America, Inc. filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Guess?, Inc. and certain third-party licensees for the Company asserting, among other things, trademark and trade dress law violations and unfair competition. The complaint sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, including treble damages, and certain other relief. Complaints similar to those in the above action have also been filed by Gucci entities against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in the Court of Milan, Italy, the Court of Paris, France and the Intermediate People’s Court of Nanjing, China. The three week bench trial in the U.S. matter concluded on April 19, 2012, with the court issuing a preliminary ruling on May 21, 2012 and a final ruling on July 19, 2012. Although the plaintiff was seeking compensation in the U.S. matter in the form of damages of $26 million and an accounting of profits of $99 million, the final ruling provided for monetary damages of $2.3 million against the Company and $2.3 million against certain of its licensees. The court also granted narrow injunctions in favor of the plaintiff for certain of the claimed infringements. On August 20, 2012, the appeal period expired without any party having filed an appeal, rendering the judgment final.On May 2, 2013, the Court of Milan ruled in favor of the Company in the Milan, Italy matter. In the ruling, the Court rejected all of the plaintiff’s claims and ordered the cancellation of three of the plaintiff’s Italian and four of the plaintiff’s European Community trademark registrations. On June 10, 2013, the plaintiff appealed the Court's ruling in the Milan matter. In the China matter, the Intermediate People’s Court of Nanjing, China issued a ruling on November 8, 2013 granting an injunction in favor of the plaintiff for certain of the claimed infringements on handbags and small leather goods and awarding the plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of approximately$80,000. The Company strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision and has appealed the ruling. The judgment in the China matter is stayed pending the appeal.

On August 25, 2006, Franchez Isaguirre, a former employee of the Company, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles alleging violations by the Company of California wage and hour laws. The complaint was subsequently amended, adding a second former employee as an additional named party. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of similarly situated employees in California who allegedly had been injured by not being provided adequate meal and rest breaks. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, statutory penalties, attorney's fees and injunctive and declaratory relief. On June 9, 2009, the Court certified the class but immediately stayed the case pending the resolution of a separate California Supreme Court case on the standards of class treatment for meal and rest break claims. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Superior Court denied the Company's motions to decertify the class and to narrow the class in January 2013 and June 2013, respectively. The Company filed a writ petition in July 2013 challenging the Court's decision not to narrow the class definitions and is awaiting a ruling. No trial date has been set.

Although the Company believes that it has a strong position and will continue to vigorously defend each of these matters, it is unable to predict with certainty whether or not these efforts will ultimately be successful or whether the outcomes will have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

The Company is also involved in various other claims and other matters incidental to the Company’s business, the resolution of which is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. No material amounts were accrued as of November 2, 2013 or February 2, 2013 related to any of the Company’s legal proceedings.