Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 29, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Leases The Company leases its showrooms, advertising, licensing, sales and merchandising offices, remote distribution and warehousing facilities and retail and factory outlet 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 5% to 15%, when specific sales volumes are exceeded. The Company’s concession leases also provide for rents primarily based upon a percentage of annual sales volume which average approximately 34% of annual sales volume. 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 September 2021. Investment Commitments As of October 29, 2016, the Company had an unfunded commitment to invest €5.0 million ($5.5 million) in a private equity fund. The investment will be included in other assets in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheet when it is funded. 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 Intermediate People’s Court of Nanjing, China and the Court of Paris, France. 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. On September 15, 2014, the Court of Appeal of Milan affirmed the majority of the lower Court’s ruling in favor of the Company, but overturned the lower Court’s finding with respect to an unfair competition claim. That portion of the matter is now in a damages phase based on the ruling. On October 16, 2015, the plaintiff appealed the remainder of the Court of Appeal of Milan’s ruling in favor of the Company to the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation. 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 disagreed with the Court’s decision and appealed the ruling. On August 31, 2016, the Court of Appeal for the China matter issued a decision in favor of the Company, rejecting all of the plaintiff’s claims. On January 30, 2015, the Court of Paris ruled in favor of the Company in the France matter, rejecting all of the plaintiff’s claims and partially canceling two of the plaintiff’s community trademark registrations and one of the plaintiff’s international trademark registrations. On February 17, 2015, the plaintiff appealed the Court of Paris’ ruling. 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 subsequently petitioned to have the Court’s decision not to narrow the class definition reviewed. That petition was ultimately denied by the California Supreme Court in April 2014. In July 2015, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the matter for $5.25 million, subject to certain limited offsets. The Court issued a final order and judgment approving the settlement in February 2016. The Company has received customs tax assessment notices from the Italian Customs Agency regarding its customs tax audit of one of the Company’s European subsidiaries for the period from July 2010 through December 2012. Such assessments totaled €9.8 million ($10.8 million), including potential penalties and interest. The Company strongly disagrees with the positions that the Italian Customs Agency has taken and therefore filed appeals with the Milan First Degree Tax Court (“MFDTC”). In May 2015, the MFDTC issued a judgment in favor of the Company in relation to the first set of appeals (covering the period through September 2010) and canceled the related assessments totaling €1.7 million ($1.8 million). In November 2015, the Italian Customs Agency notified the Company of its intent to appeal this first MFDTC judgment. In November 2016, the Appeals Court ruled in favor of the Company and rejected the appeal by the Italian Customs Agency on a portion of the first MFDTC judgment, with the remaining portion still to be determined. During the first nine months of fiscal 2017, the MFDTC issued judgments in favor of the Company in relation to the second through sixth set of appeals (covering the period from October 2010 through June 2012) as well as a portion of the seventh set of appeals (covering the period from August 2012 through December 2012) and canceled the related assessments totaling €7.9 million ($8.7 million). Subsequently, the Italian Customs Agency has appealed all but one of these favorable MFDTC judgments. While these MFDTC judgments have been favorable to the Company, there can be no assurances that the Company’s remaining open appeal for July 2012 will be successful. There also can be no assurances that the Italian Customs Agency will not be successful in its remaining appeals. It also continues to be possible that the Company will receive similar or even larger assessments for periods subsequent to December 2012 or other claims or charges related to the matter in the future. Although the Company believes that it has a strong position and will continue to vigorously defend each of the remaining 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 resolutions of which are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The Company leases its showrooms, advertising, licensing, sales and merchandising offices, remote distribution and warehousing facilities and retail and factory outlet 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 5% to 15%, when specific sales volumes are exceeded. The Company’s concession leases also provide for rents primarily based upon a percentage of annual sales volume which average approximately 34% of annual sales volume. 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 September 2021.

Investment Commitments

As of October 29, 2016, the Company had an unfunded commitment to invest €5.0 million ($5.5 million) in a private equity fund. The investment will be included in other assets in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheet when it is funded.

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 Intermediate People’s Court of Nanjing, China and the Court of Paris, France. 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. On September 15, 2014, the Court of Appeal of Milan affirmed the majority of the lower Court’s ruling in favor of the Company, but overturned the lower Court’s finding with respect to an unfair competition claim. That portion of the matter is now in a damages phase based on the ruling. On October 16, 2015, the plaintiff appealed the remainder of the Court of Appeal of Milan’s ruling in favor of the Company to the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation. 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 disagreed with the Court’s decision and appealed the ruling. On August 31, 2016, the Court of Appeal for the China matter issued a decision in favor of the Company, rejecting all of the plaintiff’s claims. On January 30, 2015, the Court of Paris ruled in favor of the Company in the France matter, rejecting all of the plaintiff’s claims and partially canceling two of the plaintiff’s community trademark registrations and one of the plaintiff’s international trademark registrations. On February 17, 2015, the plaintiff appealed the Court of Paris’ ruling.

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 subsequently petitioned to have the Court’s decision not to narrow the class definition reviewed. That petition was ultimately denied by the California Supreme Court in April 2014. In July 2015, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the matter for $5.25 million, subject to certain limited offsets. The Court issued a final order and judgment approving the settlement in February 2016.

The Company has received customs tax assessment notices from the Italian Customs Agency regarding its customs tax audit of one of the Company’s European subsidiaries for the period from July 2010 through December 2012. Such assessments totaled €9.8 million ($10.8 million), including potential penalties and interest. The Company strongly disagrees with the positions that the Italian Customs Agency has taken and therefore filed appeals with the Milan First Degree Tax Court (“MFDTC”). In May 2015, the MFDTC issued a judgment in favor of the Company in relation to the first set of appeals (covering the period through September 2010) and canceled the related assessments totaling €1.7 million ($1.8 million). In November 2015, the Italian Customs Agency notified the Company of its intent to appeal this first MFDTC judgment. In November 2016, the Appeals Court ruled in favor of the Company and rejected the appeal by the Italian Customs Agency on a portion of the first MFDTC judgment, with the remaining portion still to be determined. During the first nine months of fiscal 2017, the MFDTC issued judgments in favor of the Company in relation to the second through sixth set of appeals (covering the period from October 2010 through June 2012) as well as a portion of the seventh set of appeals (covering the period from August 2012 through December 2012) and canceled the related assessments totaling €7.9 million ($8.7 million). Subsequently, the Italian Customs Agency has appealed all but one of these favorable MFDTC judgments. While these MFDTC judgments have been favorable to the Company, there can be no assurances that the Company’s remaining open appeal for July 2012 will be successful. There also can be no assurances that the Italian Customs Agency will not be successful in its remaining appeals. It also continues to be possible that the Company will receive similar or even larger assessments for periods subsequent to December 2012 or other claims or charges related to the matter in the future.

Although the Company believes that it has a strong position and will continue to vigorously defend each of the remaining 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 resolutions of which are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.