When Fonts become a Risk: Protection and Licensing of Fonts and Typefaces

Companies in Switzerland and Germany are increasingly confronted with substantial licensing claims from font foundries, some of which systematically and automatically scan the internet for licensing violations. This article examines the background of this issue and outlines the most pressing legal questions.

Surprise License Claims

In recent years, enforcement practices by major font providers have intensified dramatically. At the center of this is Monotype, the world’s largest provider of font software and owner of numerous well-known typefaces such as Helvetica, Times New Roman, and Futura. The company, which was acquired by private equity investor HGGC in 2019, has built up an unprecedented portfolio of typefaces through a multitude of acquisitions (including Linotype, Hoefler & Co., FontShop International, ITC, and numerous other foundries).

Large corporations, in particular, are contacted based on automated analysis reports and accused of unlicensed use of certain fonts. The retroactive licensing claims asserted in this manner can amount to substantial sums. These claims often come as a surprise to many companies, especially if a license agreement had previously been concluded for the relevant fonts and the scope of the existing license was unknowingly exceeded, or if the owner of the asserted rights has changed. In the latter case in particular, this can then lead to a drastically increased licensing claim.

The Key Legal Issues: More unresolved than clarified

The legal assessment of claims related to font usage is by no means trivial and requires an understanding of how typefaces are presented at the intersection of marketing, IT, and law. In terms of terminology, “typeface” refers to the design of a font and thus describes the appearance of letters, numbers, and characters as a visual concept. A font is the concrete technical implementation of a typeface, traditionally as metal or wooden type, and today mostly as a digital font file.

The main vulnerability for foundries like Monotype usually stems from the use of font software in poorly designed websites and apps. In the process, marketing professionals often, consciously or unconsciously, deviate from corporate identity guidelines on a project-by-project basis. Displaying these typefaces requires embedding font files in the website or app code, which are then easily recognizable from the outside. This makes the embedding of certain fonts in the website code all the more unnecessary when they are used (often ly by programmers) only as so-called fallbacks, which is, merely as substitutes when the primary font cannot be displayed for technical reasons.

Traditionally, copyright protection for typefaces, that is, the visual appearance of letters, has largely been denied. Even according to the practice of the U.S. Copyright Office, there are generally no copyrights in typeface designs. In Europe, the situation is more nuanced: While the German Federal Court of Justice recognized fundamental protection for particularly original typefaces as early as 1958 in the “Candida” decision, the threshold in practice remains high. In 2023, the French Tribunal judiciaire de Paris recognized the “Le Monde Journal” typeface as a copyright-protected work but ruled that another typeface did not infringe upon it because its overall impression differed sufficiently.

A distinction must be made between the protection of the typeface itself and the question of whether fonts can be protected by copyright as computer programs. In principle, this is affirmed, provided the files contain sufficient control commands, which can generally be assumed to be the case. In Germany, the Regional Court of Cologne confirmed in 2000 that font software is protected as a computer program .

Even if copyright protection exists, the question arises as to which acts of use are actually covered by the purchased license. The licensing models of major foundries such as Monotype are complex and typically include separate rights for desktop, web, app, and server use; they are time-limited and apply to specific usage volumes. Often, however, companies are not even aware of which fonts are used within their organization and whether their existing licenses cover actual usage.

Since Monotype is headquartered in the U.S. and font license agreements regularly stipulate U.S. law and a U.S. venue, European companies also face the risk of ending up in a U.S. court in the event of legal disputes.

Handling Claims for additional Payment

As soon as a demand for additional compensation is received, neither blindly paying nor simply ignoring the demands constitutes an appropriate response. Since such demands for additional compensation from Monotype, in particular, are rarely accompanied by a legal justification, a thorough understanding of the legal issues at hand helps establish a strong negotiating position—one that is well worth taking.

We will explore these and other questions in greater depth at the 2nd Swiss Design Forum on 5 November 2026. The event, titled “Protection and Licensing of Fonts and Typefaces,” will bring together experts from the fields of law, design, and business. Guest experts from Jung von Matt and Swiss Typefaces will share their perspectives on the intersection of design and marketing.