Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	11. Contingencies In May 2016, Supply Company, LLC, (“Supply”), a former licensee of the Ed Hardy trademark, commenced the action against the Company and its affiliate, Hardy Way, LLC, (“Hardy Way”, and, together with the Company, 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. 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 and Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) investigations. 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 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 such claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of these matters, but has recorded a preliminary estimate of a settlement, which the Company believes will fully be covered by insurance. 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

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

11. Contingencies

In May 2016, Supply Company, LLC, (“Supply”), a former licensee of the Ed Hardy trademark, commenced the action against the Company and its affiliate, Hardy Way, LLC, (“Hardy Way”, and, together with the Company, 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.

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 and Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) investigations.

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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 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 such claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of these matters, but has recorded a preliminary estimate of a settlement, which the Company believes will fully be covered by insurance.

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.