"domusarte" font

Please help me find the font of this logo,


hm. i've found what may be the lower font, but am reluctant to post as it is from a questionable source.

Thank you for being cautious! Much appreciated.


Yes, I found it, too. And once again, there does not appear to be any comparable commercial font.

i'm sure there is. somehow i can't see an international company doing what appears to be high end flooring using a "free" font for their logo. perhaps i'm deluded.

Elsewhere (in pdfs, for instance) they make extensive use of the Titillium Maps font family, which is also free.

Many things -beyond outright cloning- can be a good reason to avoid suggesting a font. Even a relatively mild EULA violation might be enough grounds.* That said, anybody who honestly doesn't think there's anything shady about a particular font should definitely bring it up; if somebody subsequently raises a red flag, he should re-evaluate its legitimacy, and possibly end up removing the reference. It's never too late - at least not when it comes to the big picture: it's not really just about not leading James astray, it's about not leading everybody else who might read this thread astray, plus not lowering the integrity of type design and Typophile.

* http://typophile.com/node/100481#comment-543123

BTW, I can't seem to find the Titillium Maps font. From what I can tell Titillium is a legitimate font, but I can't vouch for Titillium Maps (yet).


Thanks for the help guys,
I know its a TERRIBLE logo, but for some reason the client loves it and wants their new logo to look like it!! I gave them amazing stuff and they don't see it! I'm sure this was done on one of those crowdsourcing sites...

[to follow]

If "there does not appear to be any comparable commercial font," what's the problem? You're withholding an ID not because of the font, but because of its source?

Let's say somebody takes Meta, makes it 200% wider, slants it by 4 degrees, changes some letters, and starts giving it away. Is there a comparable font? No. Is it ethical? No. Also, if some guy has produced six fonts, four of which you're convinced involve outline theft, should you suggest either of the other two? Personally I would be very hesitant, and if I did I'd include a disclaimer.


Well heck, the source is Dafont and you know about them...

Not all Dafont fonts are tainted.

Like I said, if you think it's probably OK, just name it, and if anybody (not just me) says "I think there's a problem", reconsider.

I don't think you guys realize how many cases I see that I don't make a stink about because they're borderline.

BTW Jodie, I actually wouldn't put using a crappy free font past a big company. Especially one that doesn't mind ripping off Lucent...


Once again, we get the same principles and philosophy and hypotheticals repeated yet again.

Why can't someone simply say the font is a rip-off of LegitimateFont, and therefore shall remain nameless.

How much better is that than
>there does not appear to be any comparable commercial font
>i'm sure there is
>there can be good reasons to avoid suggesting a font
>Let's say somebody takes Meta, makes it...
all this speculation without naming the font in question, or proving that there is outline theft or cloning, or even naming the legitimate version of the font which may or may not exist.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
Yogi Berra

Let's bring the two together and stop bloviating and speculating.

Principles get repeated as needed.

Here's the recipe, or at least my recipe:
And it's almost never about Formal Proof.

In this thread I'm not sure what you think is going wrong. Personally I don't know what the font is. If I did, I might not reveal it because: I don't know the person asking enough to trust them (this is something I'm totally OK with others not following); or the font seems unethically made/published (and we all need to look beyond the IDing itself to form some sort of insight into that, plus be open to changing that opinion - as I have a few times recently).

Others who seem to know what the font is are keeping it private apparently because they're concerned it might be tainted (even if they would so enjoy showing off their IDing expertise). To me that is a Good Thing. Helping James would be nice, but at what cost?

When IDing is the end and not the means, type design and Typophile get harmed.


You're missing the point. Is it tainted or not? What is the legitimate version of the font, if any?


I'll remove the reference when you can give me a satisfactory reason to do so. That "the font seems unethically made/published" is not good enough.

How could I know if it's tainted if I don't know the font? And if I think it's tainted, I'm not going to reveal it. Personally I wouldn't even indicate that I know it.

In this case I don't think I have the level of evidence you would need to remove the reference. But for myself when I look at Castrique's collection of fonts I have little doubt outlines were swiped*. BTW if you look at the comments under his Qlassik you will witness quite a telling discussion...

* http://typophile.com/node/100499#comment-543184

What we really need is for people who are into IDing to elevate their skills to be able to identify plagiarism. I actually know a few people who are at that high level, and they used to ID fonts here. Now they avoid the ID section like the plague. I wonder why...


so my question becomes this: if i can i.d. the font, and have provided more than enough time for another person to come up with a "legitimate" version... then what? do we sacrifice our design brethren because no one can find a supposed and not even confirmed commercial font that we suspect was ripped off?

i come here not only to learn by practice, but also to help others like myself who, from time to time, are in the position of recreating a logo either for the original customer (who may have used the same suspected pirated font to begin with) or for another customer who simply likes the look.

Well speaking for myself I’ll not knowingly link to a font that’s a rip, under any circumstances, e.g. irrespective of whether it is the one that was originally used. The problem is of course that sometimes we can’t know this at the time, but becoming better at spotting possible/likely/certain ripoffs is a necessary part of getting to know type.

I suggest that the only ethical course of action where you find the font that was used and you’re sure it’s a ripoff is that you inform the OP of that fact, and of course not link to the find but to the original.

As highlighted in this other thread there’s a slightly broader issue:
What do you do if you know the maker to be guilty of copying or outline theft but they may also publish genuine fonts of their own creation? That’s a thornier issue and each person will have to decide for themselves whether they’d like to help support them.

doesn't really help the designer/graphic artist or the customer much does it?

so, you tell the customer: "I decided you can't have your logo because I don't like the font you used."

the point of the board is to i.d. fonts. yes, with conscience. but doesn't the designer have to exercise the same? we can easily i.d. legitimate fonts and provide good links to them, but don't you think that someone determined to get a freebie won't just take the provided i.d. and google it themselves?

Jodie, it's very useful that you're thinking about such things, and verbalizing them.