Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	11. Contingencies In May 2016, Supply Company, LLC, referred to as Supply, a former licensee of the Ed Hardy trademark, commenced the action against the Company and its affiliate, Hardy Way, LLC, referred to as Hardy Way (the Company and Hardy Way are collectively referred to as the Iconix Defendants) seeking damages of $50 million, including punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Supply alleges that Hardy Way breached the parties’ license agreement by failing to reimburse Supply for markdown reimbursement requests that Supply received from a certain retailer. Supply also alleges that the Company is liable for fraud because it made purported misstatements about the Company’s financials and the viability of the Ed Hardy trademark in order to induce Supply to enter into the license agreement and to induce Supply to enter into a separate agreement with a certain retailer. The Iconix Defendants are vigorously defending against the claims, and have filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, which is awaiting Court decision. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this matter. 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. On April 24, 2019, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement resolving all claims against Iconix in this action, as well as in respect of the Gerszberg action referenced below. On November 1, 2017, Seth Gerszberg, referred to as Gerszberg, and EGRHC, LLC, referred to as EGRHC (Gerszberg and EGRHC collectively referred to as Plaintiffs) (with EGRHC 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 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; and limited the fraudulent inducement claim to the Fourth Amendment of the Global License Agreement and limited the breach of the Buyout Agreement claim to the warranty as to no governmental investigation. On April 24, 2019, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement resolving all claims against Iconix in this action, as well as in the 3TAC action referenced above. 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. 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.

Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

11. Contingencies

In May 2016, Supply Company, LLC, referred to as Supply, a former licensee of the Ed Hardy trademark, commenced the action against the Company and its affiliate, Hardy Way, LLC, referred to as Hardy Way (the Company and Hardy Way are collectively referred to as the Iconix Defendants) seeking damages of $50 million, including punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Supply alleges that Hardy Way breached the parties’ license agreement by failing to reimburse Supply for markdown reimbursement requests that Supply received from a certain retailer. Supply also alleges that the Company is liable for fraud because it made purported misstatements about the Company’s financials and the viability of the Ed Hardy trademark in order to induce Supply to enter into the license agreement and to induce Supply to enter into a separate agreement with a certain retailer. The Iconix Defendants are vigorously defending against the claims, and have filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, which is awaiting Court decision. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this matter.

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. On April 24, 2019, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement resolving all claims against Iconix in this action, as well as in respect of the Gerszberg action referenced below.

On November 1, 2017, Seth Gerszberg, referred to as Gerszberg, and EGRHC, LLC, referred to as EGRHC (Gerszberg and EGRHC collectively referred to as Plaintiffs) (with EGRHC 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 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; and limited the fraudulent inducement claim to the Fourth Amendment of the Global License Agreement and limited the breach of the Buyout Agreement claim to the warranty as to no governmental investigation. On April 24, 2019, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement resolving all claims against Iconix in this action, as well as in the 3TAC action referenced above.

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.

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.