Earlier versions of Comic Sans had an eye in the Euro sign. This was later removed because 'The EU was going to sue us over that.'[2]

The reference suggest yes. However, c'mon....

I still find it hard to believe and not much info about that.

So there are several claims

  1. Comic sans have eyes on euro sign. If so, why not on other letters?
  2. EU threatened to sue. Another miracle given that Europe's sense of humor may not be smaller than the rest of the world.
  3. Comic sans creator removes the eye.
  • 1
    Microsoft page on Comic Sans MS, "interesting fact - the Euro has eyes" - microsoft.com/typography/fonts/family.aspx?FID=3
    – Tom77
    Nov 15, 2013 at 13:18
  • 5
    Funny, but I don’t find it that hard to believe. Trademark law is complicated, and in order to preserve a brand/trademark/whatever the “€” sign falls under they might have to sue under such circumstances. Nov 16, 2013 at 12:38
  • 2
    Note that the quote could also be interpreted as a humorously exaggerated expectation of what the EU might do about an irregular EUR sign. May 19, 2014 at 14:05
  • 10
    Can anyone explain what had an eye in the Euro sign is, preferably with a picture? The picture source may help in answering the question as well.
    – user22865
    Oct 27, 2017 at 8:03
  • 7
    @JanDoggen commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Euro-comic-sans.png
    – user21930
    Oct 27, 2017 at 11:24

1 Answer 1


I opted for tweeting the author as I stumbled onto this thread https://twitter.com/VincentConnare/status/923562975952363521

I wrote

@VincentConnare Was there any actual concern that the EU would take legal action on the Euro sign with eye proposal?

To which he replied

Monitery symbols are used with numerals; all are on a figure width, the same as the zero. EU’s euro would not work on a figure width.

Assuming that I haven't accidentally tweeted someone else, than the actual Vincent Connare, this implies the following in my interpretation:

There is a clear indication that this was a joke for the presentation. So it should be clarified on Wikipedia (or removed).

  • 13
    His tweet doesn't really answer your question though, does it?
    – Oddthinking
    Oct 26, 2017 at 23:26
  • 3
    @Oddthinking He isn't explicitely saying "yes" or "no", but from my understanding of human communication the message in the answer is obvious, given the question (which referenced this thread); i.e. the decision against adding adding an eye is based on other factors, not any actual legal risk. Pity that the other answer got now removed. I think the remarks why it was unlikely that there were any legal risks from the EU in the first place (e.g. referencing trademark rules) were actually relevant :-/ Oct 28, 2017 at 7:11

You must log in to answer this question.