Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Nov. 03, 2018
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 December 2037. 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 4% to 20%, when specific sales volumes are exceeded. The Company’s retail concession leases also provide for rents primarily based upon a percentage of annual sales volume which average approximately 35% 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 October 2023. As discussed in further detail in Note 9, the Company leases equipment as well as computer hardware and software under capital lease obligations. Investment Commitments As of November 3, 2018, the Company had an unfunded commitment to invest €3.6 million ($4.1 million) in a private equity fund. Refer to Note 14 for further information. Legal and Other Proceedings The Company is involved in legal proceedings, arising both in the ordinary course of business and otherwise, including the proceedings described below as well as various other claims and other matters incidental to the Company’s business. Unless otherwise stated, the resolution of any particular proceeding is not currently expected to have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Even if such an impact could be material, we may not be able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss until developments in the proceedings have provided sufficient information to support an assessment. 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 were subsequently 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 moved to 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. In March 2017, the plaintiff petitioned the China Supreme Court for a retrial of the matter. 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. In April 2018, the parties entered into an agreement to settle all pending worldwide intellectual property litigation and trademark office matters between the parties and their subsidiaries, including the previously active litigation matters in Italy, China and France. As part of the settlement, the parties agreed on the use of various design elements by each party on a go-forward basis. The settlement did not have a significant impact on the Company’s financial results, and the terms of the settlement are not expected to have a negative impact on the Company’s business operations going forward. The Company has received customs tax assessment notices from the Italian Customs Agency (“ICA”) 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 ($11.4 million), including potential penalties and interest. The Company strongly disagreed with the ICA’s positions and therefore filed appeals with the Milan First Degree Tax Court (“MFDTC”). Those appeals were split into a number of different cases that were then heard by different sections of the MFDTC. The MFDTC ruled in favor of the Company on all of these appeals. The ICA subsequently appealed €9.7 million ($11.0 million) of these favorable MFDTC judgments with the Appeals Court. To date, €6.3 million ($7.2 million) have been decided in favor of the Company, €1.3 million ($1.4 million) have been decided in favor of the ICA, and €2.1 million ($2.4 million) remain pending. The Company believes that the unfavorable Appeals Court ruling is incorrect and inconsistent with the prior rulings on similar matters by both the MFDTC and other judges within the Appeals Court, and plans to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The ICA has appealed the favorable Appeals Court rulings to the Supreme Court. There can be no assurances the Company will be successful in the 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 this matter, it is unable to predict with certainty whether or not these efforts will ultimately be successful or whether the outcome will have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. On June 6, 2017, the European Commission notified the Company that it had initiated proceedings to investigate whether certain of the Company’s practices and agreements concerning the distribution of apparel and accessories within the European Union breached European Union competition rules related to cross-border transactions, internet sales limitations and resale price restrictions. The Company has cooperated with the European Commission, including through responses to requests for information, through changes to certain business practices and agreements and by engaging in a settlement discussion process. Depending on the outcome of the proceedings, a broad range of remedies is available to the European Commission, including imposing a fine and/or injunctive relief prohibiting or restricting certain business practices. The Company has already made certain changes to its business practices and agreements in response to, and early in the course of, these proceedings, and the Company believes that such changes have not had, and will not have, a material impact on its ongoing business operations within the European Union. Based on the settlement discussion process, the Company now believes that it is likely to incur a fine in an amount between €37.0 million ($42.4 million) and €40.6 million ($46.6 million) with no further modifications of the Company’s business practices and agreements beyond those already made. Accordingly, the Company accrued an estimated charge of €37.0 million ($42.4 million) during the third quarter of fiscal 2019. A final outcome in this matter could occur as early as the fourth quarter of fiscal 2019, although any resolution may be delayed or different than current expectations due to the inherent unpredictability of the proceedings.

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 December 2037. 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 4% to 20%, when specific sales volumes are exceeded. The Company’s retail concession leases also provide for rents primarily based upon a percentage of annual sales volume which average approximately 35% 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 October 2023.

As discussed in further detail in Note 9, the Company leases equipment as well as computer hardware and software under capital lease obligations.

Investment Commitments

As of November 3, 2018, the Company had an unfunded commitment to invest €3.6 million ($4.1 million) in a private equity fund. Refer to Note 14 for further information.

Legal and Other Proceedings

The Company is involved in legal proceedings, arising both in the ordinary course of business and otherwise, including the proceedings described below as well as various other claims and other matters incidental to the Company’s business. Unless otherwise stated, the resolution of any particular proceeding is not currently expected to have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Even if such an impact could be material, we may not be able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss until developments in the proceedings have provided sufficient information to support an assessment.

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 were subsequently 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 moved to 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. In March 2017, the plaintiff petitioned the China Supreme Court for a retrial of the matter. 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. In April 2018, the parties entered into an agreement to settle all pending worldwide intellectual property litigation and trademark office matters between the parties and their subsidiaries, including the previously active litigation matters in Italy, China and France. As part of the settlement, the parties agreed on the use of various design elements by each party on a go-forward basis. The settlement did not have a significant impact on the Company’s financial results, and the terms of the settlement are not expected to have a negative impact on the Company’s business operations going forward.

The Company has received customs tax assessment notices from the Italian Customs Agency (“ICA”) 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 ($11.4 million), including potential penalties and interest. The Company strongly disagreed with the ICA’s positions and therefore filed appeals with the Milan First Degree Tax Court (“MFDTC”). Those appeals were split into a number of different cases that were then heard by different sections of the MFDTC. The MFDTC ruled in favor of the Company on all of these appeals. The ICA subsequently appealed €9.7 million ($11.0 million) of these favorable MFDTC judgments with the Appeals Court. To date, €6.3 million ($7.2 million) have been decided in favor of the Company, €1.3 million ($1.4 million) have been decided in favor of the ICA, and €2.1 million ($2.4 million) remain pending. The Company believes that the unfavorable Appeals Court ruling is incorrect and inconsistent with the prior rulings on similar matters by both the MFDTC and other judges within the Appeals Court, and plans to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The ICA has appealed the favorable Appeals Court rulings to the Supreme Court. There can be no assurances the Company will be successful in the 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 this matter, it is unable to predict with certainty whether or not these efforts will ultimately be successful or whether the outcome will have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

On June 6, 2017, the European Commission notified the Company that it had initiated proceedings to investigate whether certain of the Company’s practices and agreements concerning the distribution of apparel and accessories within the European Union breached European Union competition rules related to cross-border transactions, internet sales limitations and resale price restrictions. The Company has cooperated with the European Commission, including through responses to requests for information, through changes to certain business practices and agreements and by engaging in a settlement discussion process. Depending on the outcome of the proceedings, a broad range of remedies is available to the European Commission, including imposing a fine and/or injunctive relief prohibiting or restricting certain business practices. The Company has already made certain changes to its business practices and agreements in response to, and early in the course of, these proceedings, and the Company believes that such changes have not had, and will not have, a material impact on its ongoing business operations within the European Union. Based on the settlement discussion process, the Company now believes that it is likely to incur a fine in an amount between €37.0 million ($42.4 million) and €40.6 million ($46.6 million) with no further modifications of the Company’s business practices and agreements beyond those already made. Accordingly, the Company accrued an estimated charge of €37.0 million ($42.4 million) during the third quarter of fiscal 2019. A final outcome in this matter could occur as early as the fourth quarter of fiscal 2019, although any resolution may be delayed or different than current expectations due to the inherent unpredictability of the proceedings.