Jocelyn Holtsberry, Associate Member 2025-2026
Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal
Introduction
In an era where aesthetics are defining brand identity, brands are abandoning graphic elements in their logos and overall identities. In today’s branding landscape, a single typeface can define an entire brand. This strategic shift highlights typography as an integral part of brand identity, yet a font can be one of the most legally vulnerable assets a company can own.
Current intellectual property law provides only limited protection for typography[1]. As brands increasingly rely on typography as the centerpiece of brand identity, those protections often prove inadequate, particularly for smaller brands. Courts have long treated typefaces as functional design tools rather than expressive works, leaving them largely outside the scope of traditional copyright protection.[2] Courts have largely maintained this position. With the law lagging behind brand identity practices, brands are left with avenues of protection that may not come easily for smaller brands. As typography becomes more central to brand identity, intellectual property must reconsider whether original typeface designs deserve stronger protection. Until this evolution occurs, brands should look toward the limited routes to trademark and patent protections despite the disadvantages they pose to smaller brands.
This Article analyzes the current state of fonts and typography in intellectual property and provides insight into where it should evolve. Part II provides background on current copyright, trademark, and patent law regarding fonts and typography.[3] Part III discusses the impact of the courts’ most recent rulings regarding fonts, what brands should be doing now, and what needs to be done.[4] Part IV concludes by determining if existing intellectual property statutes do enough to help balance the interests of brands and intellectual property.[5]
Background
As it stands currently, typography is not afforded an abundance of intellectual property protection.
Typeface v. Font
Typography and font are two different terms with distinct differences important for users. Typography is the practice of arranging typefaces. A typeface is a set of characters such as letters, numbers, or other characters with repeating design elements.[6] A font is a variation of typeface. Variations of a typeface’s size, style (bolding and italicizing), and its weight create a font.[7] Typography is often the building block of unique and expressive works of authorship.[8]
Copyright Law
Under copyright law “mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring” are not subject to copyright protection.[9] The courts have strongly stood by this statutory requirement. In Eltra Corp. v. Ringer, the appellant manufacturer was denied copyright registration for a new typeface designed by a designer because the appellee Copyright Office determined the artistic elements of a typeface could not be separated from the design’s utilitarian function.[10] The court affirmed the Copyright Office’s decision stating “what Congress has refused to authorize for registration, Courts cannot authorize or require.”[11] The Supreme Court has not disturbed Eltra’s approach, and typefaces remain largely outside copyright protection laws. As a result, Eltra continues to shape modern copyright treatment of typefaces by reinforcing the principle that the visual design of letterforms is separable from their functional role in written communication.[12]
However, the Copyright Office and courts have allowed copyright registration for fonts as computer programs.[13] The source code of a computer program that generates typeface or font designs may be eligible for copyright protection if it contains sufficient original authorship in the form of statements or instructions to a computer.[14] The reasoning behind this exception comes from the idea that creating a scalable font output program consists of a number of decisions in designing the code instructions.[15] There is an exception to this exception. A computer program generated scalable font with copyright protection still does not provide protection to typefaces generated by the program.[16]
Trademark Law
Like copyright law, trademark law generally does not protect the design of a typeface itself, as trademarks are intended to identify the source of goods in commerce rather than protect artistic creations.[17] In Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Comicmix LLC the court ruled that a general “illustration style” is not a protectable trademark and using a typeface without an accompanying enforceable mark does not constitute a trademark violation.[18] Here defendant ComicMix created a commercial “Star Trek” mash-up book by extensively copying the illustrations and style of Dr. Seuss’s Oh, the Places You’ll Go!, leading to a lawsuit over copyright and trademark infringement.[19] Because artistic and creative concepts are traditionally the domain of copyright law rather than the Lanham Act, the Court opted to not grant trademark protection to Seuss being careful not to overextend the Lanham Act into these creative concepts.[20]
Specific fonts and typefaces can be protected if their design is unique or unusual and gains secondary meaning in the relevant market. Think of Walt Disney’s iconic swirling font which has acquired secondary meaning of instantly identifying the Disney brand. In Star Indus. v. Bacardi & Co. the court distinguished between “basic” unshaded linear representations of letters, which are not protectable, and stylized letters or shapes, which may be protectable if they are original within the relevant market. In Star Indus, Star Industries sued Bacardi for trademark infringement because Bacardi’s orange-flavored rum used a stylized “O” similar to the “O” on Star’s Georgi vodka.[21] The court determined that although “common basic shapes” or letters are not inherently distinctive as a matter of law, a letter can be protected if its design is unique or unusual in the relevant market.[22] As such, the level of protection afforded to such stylized elements may be limited if the stylization is marginal, resulting in a “thin” or weak mark.[23] In trademark doctrine, a “thin mark” receives only narrow protection, meaning infringement typically occurs only when a competing design is nearly identical rather than merely similar.[24]
Typography rarely functions as a stand-alone identifier unless the stylization is distinctive enough to identify a single source, something that is more common with iconic brands like Disney and Coca Cola than with minimalist wordmarks.
Patent Law
Brands can seek protection through design patents. Design patents protect the look of something functional.[25] “A popular use of design patents is to protect the outside of common consumer products,”[26] In theory, a sufficiently distinctive typeface design could qualify for this protection.
Discussion
In today’s brand landscape, a brand’s choice of font expresses its aesthetic, marketing strategy and overall individual brand identity. Many brands’ marketing and aesthetics now consist of only typography elements. Brands like Rhode, Summer Fridays, and Merit Beauty use a sleek serif font displaying each brand name as the standout element in their product packaging. No graphic elements are used aside from typeface letters. The sole use of sleek serif typography is an effort to give off a high-end, clean, quiet luxury aesthetic to attract the current market. When branding relies almost entirely on typography, the legal strength of the brand identity may depend on whether those letterforms can function as distinct source identifiers vice merely decorative design choices. As brands increasingly rely on typography as the centerpiece of brand identity, legal protection for those assets remains uncertain. Intellectual property mostly treats typography assets as utilitarian designs rather than expressive works of authorship limited with narrow pathways for protection.
Courts Continue to Limit Protections in Laatz v. Zazzle.
In May 2025, the Northern District of California delivered a decision regarding intellectual property protection for a typeface in Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.[27] Here, font designer Nicky Laatz sued the online marketplace Zazzle for exceeding the scope of a $20 “one-seat” license for her “Blooming Elegant” font trio by installing the software on multiple servers and making it available to millions of users.[28] The court dismissed the copyright claim, holding that the font files lacked the necessary human authorship because they were generated by a visual font-editing program rather than being “hand-coded” by the designer.[29] This decision affirms previous court’s rulings that protection under federal intellectual property law for typography remains incredibly narrow even as brands are shifting typography’s role in branding to be more prominent. This decision also highlights a growing gap where the market views typography as a critical differentiator, but the law continues to view it through a restrictive, functional lens.
What Brands Can Do Now.
Due to the courts’ and U.S. Copyright Office’s reluctance to give typography expansive protection, brands looking to spotlight typography in their marketing and brand identity are not left with many avenues. And these avenues are disadvantageous for smaller brands. As previously discussed, brands can seek trademark protection if its design is unique or unusual in the relevant market.[30] Brands can also invest in designing a custom font to acquire a design patent. These methods of protection however tend to favor already well-known brands or brands that have the resources to go down these avenues. Apple is obviously better able to invest in its own font (known as San Francisco[31]) than a smaller or newer brand. Apple and brands of similar status have the resources to invest in a design patent and the brand recognition power to have an identifiable mark. Smaller brands cannot do the same.
Conclusion
The courts and U.S. Copyright Office continue to ignore typography as a critical asset in need of protection. The law must evolve to recognize original typeface designs and fonts as protectable expressive works. The primary barrier stopping fonts from having solid intellectual property protections is the longstanding view that typefaces are functional tools and not expressive works.[32] Courts have reasoned that because letterforms must remain usable and legible, their aesthetic features cannot be separated from their utilitarian purpose.[33] This function-centered reasoning stems from copyright doctrine and broader intellectual property principles designed to safeguard competition.[34]
However, modern separation doctrine suggests that expressive elements incorporated into useful articles may be protectable if they can be identified independently of the article’s utilitarian aspects.[35] In a digital marketplace where branding value often lies in stylistic distinctiveness rather than mere legibility, the rigid framing of typefaces as purely functional may warrant reconsideration. As technology and evolving marketing efforts continue to expand the role of typography, the traditional limitations on font protection are beginning to appear out of step with today’s reality. Courts and law makers should address the growing gap between typography protections and branding practices before it becomes too big a danger for brands to ignore.
Until this evolution occurs, brands should look towards the limited routes to trademark and patent protections despite the disadvantages they pose to smaller brands. The evolving landscape of branding deserves an equally adaptive legal framework to address the protection of typography assets. The current legal framework is proving increasingly inadequate with a dire need for the law to catch up and meet brands where they are.
[1] Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. ComicMix LLC., 372 F.Supp.3d 1101, 1127 (S.D. Cal. 2019).
[2] Eltra Corp. v. Ringer, 579 F.2d 294, 296 (4th Cir. 1978).
[3] See discussion infra Part II.
[4] See discussion infra Part III.
[5] See discussion infra Part IV.
[6] 37 CFR § 202.1 (2006).
[7] Karl M. Zielaznick & Victoria D. Summerfield, An IP Law Recipe for Alphabet Soup: Typefaces and Fonts (Mar. 20 2023), https://www.troutman.com/insights/an-ip-law-recipe-for-alphabet-soup-typefaces-and-fonts/ [https://perma.cc/WZN3-UVGE].
[8] Id.
[9] 37 CFR § 202.1.
[10] Eltra Corp. v. Ringer, 579 F.2d 294, 296 (4th Cir. 1978).
[11] Id.
[12] Id. at 297.
[13] Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 723 (Matthew Bender, Rev. Ed. 2025).
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Zielaznick & Summerfield, supra note 2.
[17] Id.
[18] Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P 372 F.Supp.3d at 1101.
[19] Id. at 1110.
[20] Id. at 1112.
[21] Star Indus. v. Bacardi & Co., 412 F.3d 373 (2d Cir. 2005).
[22] Id. at 390.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] Seyfarth Shaw, My Word! Design Patents on a Typeface (Feb. 23, 2023), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ my-word-design-patents-on-a-typeface-4319019/ [https://perma.cc/UX6P-6JDM].
[26] Id.
[27] Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc., 682 F.Supp.3d 791 (N.D. Cal. 2023).
[28] Id. at 813.
[29] Id. at 799.
[30] Star Indus. v. Bacardi & Co., 412 F.3d 373 (2d Cir. 2005).
[31] Fonts for Apple Platforms, https://developer.apple.com/fonts/ [https://perma.cc/2EDZ-4Y7C] (last visited Feb. 24, 2026).
[32] Eltra Corp. 579 F.2d, at 298.
[33] Id.
[34] Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 161, 115 S. Ct. 1300 (1995). Traffix Devices v. Mktg. Displays, 532 U.S. 23, 26, 121 S. Ct. 1255, 1258 (2001).
[35] Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. 405, 409, 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017)
Leave a Reply