Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	12. Contingencies On May 1, 2017, 3TAC, LLC, referred to as 3TAC, a former licensee of the Company, and West Loop South, LLC, referred to as West Loop (3TAC and West Loop collectively referred to as Plaintiffs), filed a second amended complaint against the Company, its affiliate, IP Holdings Unltd., LLC, referred to as IPHU, and the Company’s former CEO, Neil Cole (the Company, IPHU, and Cole are collectively referred to as the Iconix Parties), in the action captioned 3TAC, LLC and West Loop South, LLC v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc.,IP Holdings Unltd, LLC and Neil Cole, Case No. 16-cv-08795-GBD-RWL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with contract and business relations, unjust enrichment, trade libel, unfair competition and prima facie tort relating to the Iconix Parties’ alleged breach of a Global License Agreement, as amended, between 3TAC and IPHU concerning intellectual property rights in and to the Marc Ecko brands, the Iconix Parties’ alleged interference with 3TAC’s performance thereunder, and the Iconix Parties’ alleged interference with a related sublicense between 3TAC and West Loop. On October 27, 2017, Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted the Iconix Parties’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment, trade libel, unfair competition and prima facie tort claims. Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on June 11, 2018, in which no new claims were asserted, and the only additional allegations are related to the allegedly “inconsistent” exclusive license of New Rise Brand Holdings, LLC. Plaintiffs seek damages of at least $22 million for their remaining claims as well as punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. The Iconix Parties are vigorously defending against the remaining claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this matter. On November 1, 2017, Seth Gerszberg and EGRHC, LLC, collectively referred to as Plaintiffs, (EGRHC, LLC suing in its capacity as a successor-in-interest to Suchman, LLC, referred to as Suchman, a company wholly-owned by Gerszberg that entered into a joint venture with the Company pursuant to which they formed IP Holdings Unltd., LLC, referred to as IPHU), filed an action captioned Gerszberg and EGRHC, LLC v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc., IP Holdings Unltd, LLC and Neil Cole, Case No. 17-cv-08421-GBD-RWL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs asserted claims against the Company, IPHU, and Neil Cole (collectively referred to as the Iconix Parties) for breach of IPHU’s Operating Agreement and related breaches of fiduciary duties, breach of an agreement pursuant to which the Company bought out Suchman’s interest in IPHU and fraudulent inducement and unjust enrichment regarding that buyout agreement; and also asserted claims for fraudulent inducement regarding the fourth amendment of the Global License Agreement between 3TAC, LLC and IPHU concerning the intellectual property rights in and to the Marc Ecko brands. On May 7, 2018, Judge Katherine B. Forrest dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the IPHU Operating Agreement, and unjust enrichment claims, based largely upon a release provision in the buyout agreement. Further, the court narrowed the remaining claims in the following manner: limiting the fraudulent inducement claim to the fourth amendment to the Global License Agreement (ruling that the fraudulent inducement claim as to the buyout agreement was released), and limiting the breach of the buyout agreement claim to the government investigation representation. Plaintiffs seek more than $100 million in damages, including compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution. The Iconix Parties are vigorously defending against the remaining claims asserted by Plaintiffs. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this matter. In April 2016, New Rise Brands Holdings, LLC, referred to as New Rise, a former licensee of the Ecko Unlimited trademark, and Sichuan New Rise Import & Export Co. Ltd., referred to as Sichuan, the guarantor under New Rise's license agreement, commenced an action captioned New Rise Brands Holdings, LLC and Sichuan New Rise Import & Export Co. Ltd v. IP Holdings Unltd, LLC, et al., Index No. 652278/2016 in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County against the Company’s subsidiary, IP Holdings Unltd, LLC, referred to as IP Holdings, seeking damages of at least $15 million, plus punitive damages of $50 million, counsel fees and costs. Among other claims, New Rise and Sichuan allege improper termination of New Rise’s license agreement, fraud and misappropriation. On September 21, 2018, New Rise and Sichuan served an expert report claiming damages ranging from $15.6 million to $44.2 million. IP Holdings is vigorously defending against the claims and has asserted counterclaims against New Rise and Sichuan. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this matter. 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. The Company continues to cooperate in the previously disclosed SEC investigation. Three securities class actions have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-4860, against the Company and certain former officers and one current officer (the “Class Action”). The plaintiffs in the Class Action purport to represent a class of purchasers of the Company’s securities from February 22, 2012 to November 5, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the Company’s business operations and prospects. On October 25, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed by the Company and the individual defendants with leave to amend. On November 14, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims. 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.

12. Contingencies

On May 1, 2017, 3TAC, LLC, referred to as 3TAC, a former licensee of the Company, and West Loop South, LLC, referred to as West Loop (3TAC and West Loop collectively referred to as Plaintiffs), filed a second amended complaint against the Company, its affiliate, IP Holdings Unltd., LLC, referred to as IPHU, and the Company’s former CEO, Neil Cole (the Company, IPHU, and Cole are collectively referred to as the Iconix Parties), in the action captioned 3TAC, LLC and West Loop South, LLC v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc.,IP Holdings Unltd, LLC and Neil Cole, Case No. 16-cv-08795-GBD-RWL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with contract and business relations, unjust enrichment, trade libel, unfair competition and prima facie tort relating to the Iconix Parties’ alleged breach of a Global License Agreement, as amended, between 3TAC and IPHU concerning intellectual property rights in and to the Marc Ecko brands, the Iconix Parties’ alleged interference with 3TAC’s performance thereunder, and the Iconix Parties’ alleged interference with a related sublicense between 3TAC and West Loop. On October 27, 2017, Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted the Iconix Parties’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment, trade libel, unfair competition and prima facie tort claims. Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on June 11, 2018, in which no new claims were asserted, and the only additional allegations are related to the allegedly “inconsistent” exclusive license of New Rise Brand Holdings, LLC. Plaintiffs seek damages of at least $22 million for their remaining claims as well as punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. The Iconix Parties are vigorously defending against the remaining claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this matter.

On November 1, 2017, Seth Gerszberg and EGRHC, LLC, collectively referred to as Plaintiffs, (EGRHC, LLC suing in its capacity as a successor-in-interest to Suchman, LLC, referred to as Suchman, a company wholly-owned by Gerszberg that entered into a joint venture with the Company pursuant to which they formed IP Holdings Unltd., LLC, referred to as IPHU), filed an action captioned Gerszberg and EGRHC, LLC v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc., IP Holdings Unltd, LLC and Neil Cole, Case No. 17-cv-08421-GBD-RWL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs asserted claims against the Company, IPHU, and Neil Cole (collectively referred to as the Iconix Parties) for breach of IPHU’s Operating Agreement and related breaches of fiduciary duties, breach of an agreement pursuant to which the Company bought out Suchman’s interest in IPHU and fraudulent inducement and unjust enrichment regarding that buyout agreement; and also asserted claims for fraudulent inducement regarding the fourth amendment of the Global License Agreement between 3TAC, LLC and IPHU concerning the intellectual property rights in and to the Marc Ecko brands. On May 7, 2018, Judge Katherine B. Forrest dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the IPHU Operating Agreement, and unjust enrichment claims, based largely upon a release provision in the buyout agreement. Further, the court narrowed the remaining claims in the following manner: limiting the fraudulent inducement claim to the fourth amendment to the Global License Agreement (ruling that the fraudulent inducement claim as to the buyout agreement was released), and limiting the breach of the buyout agreement claim to the government investigation representation. Plaintiffs seek more than $100 million in damages, including compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution. The Iconix Parties are vigorously defending against the remaining claims asserted by Plaintiffs. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this matter.

In April 2016, New Rise Brands Holdings, LLC, referred to as New Rise, a former licensee of the Ecko Unlimited trademark, and Sichuan New Rise Import & Export Co. Ltd., referred to as Sichuan, the guarantor under New Rise's license agreement, commenced an action captioned New Rise Brands Holdings, LLC and Sichuan New Rise Import & Export Co. Ltd v. IP Holdings Unltd, LLC, et al., Index No. 652278/2016 in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County against the Company’s subsidiary, IP Holdings Unltd, LLC, referred to as IP Holdings, seeking damages of at least $15 million, plus punitive damages of $50 million, counsel fees and costs. Among other claims, New Rise and Sichuan allege improper termination of New Rise’s license agreement, fraud and misappropriation. On September 21, 2018, New Rise and Sichuan served an expert report claiming damages ranging from $15.6 million to $44.2 million. IP Holdings is vigorously defending against the claims and has asserted counterclaims against New Rise and Sichuan. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this matter.

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.

The Company continues to cooperate in the previously disclosed SEC investigation.

Three securities class actions have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-4860, against the Company and certain former officers and one current officer (the “Class Action”). The plaintiffs in the Class Action purport to represent a class of purchasers of the Company’s securities from February 22, 2012 to November 5, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the Company’s business operations and prospects. On October 25, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed by the Company and the individual defendants with leave to amend. On November 14, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims. 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.