Monotype Imaging Inc. v. Deluxe Corp., 883 F. Supp. 2d 317

Plaintiffs Monotype Imaging, Linotype GMBH, and ITC sue Deluxe for trademark infringement, unfair competition under Chapter 93A, and breach of contract.
Deluxe answered and asserted two counterclaims for breach of contract and Chapter 93A unfair business practices; Monotype’s motion to dismiss those counterclaims is pending.
Licensing agreement (April 1996) allows Deluxe internal use of Monotype’s font software, prohibits transfer of Licensed Products to third parties, and provides concurrent use on 100 printers.
Dispute centers on whether Internet-based sales and electronic proofs exceed the license scope and whether electronic proofs are “bitmaps” restricted by the license.
Plaintiffs allege Deluxe breaches by allowing third-party Internet use and transferring bitmaps; Deluxe disputes the meaning of “bitmap” and claims it is within licensed rights.
Procedural posture: denial of motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim; 93A claim challenged, court ultimately grants dismissal of 93A claim but denies dismissal of breach of contract claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 93A claim is viable given the contract dispute.	94A claim arises from bad-faith conduct beyond contract terms.	93A claim alleges unfair practices beyond contract dispute.	93A claim dismissed.
Whether electronic proofs/outputs breach the license as ‘bitmaps.’	Electronic proofs are covered as bitmaps transferred to third parties.	Bitmap term applies to font software, not proofs; disputed meaning requires record.	Remanded/undecided on factual meaning; not resolved on motion.
Whether there was a disturbance of Licensed Products warranting breach claim.	Actions repudiating license and demanding extra fees disturb use.	Dispute over scope; actions within license rights or ongoing negotiations.	Breach of contract claim survives the motion to dismiss.
Whether plaintiffs’ dismissal of 93A is appropriate given scope of unfair practices.	Counterclaim alleges bad faith and coercion.	Contractual dispute insufficient to show unfair methods.	93A claim allowed to proceed was denied in part; ultimately dismissed on the record.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading requires plausible claims)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (clear failure to plead factual content allows dismissal)
Nollet v. Justices of the Trial Court of Mass., 83 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Mass. 2000) (pleadings standard for pleadings in Mass cases; factual allegations must support claims)
Langadinos v. American Airlines, Inc., 199 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2000) (appellate standard for factual plausibility in pleadings)
Madan v. Royal Indemnity Co., 26 Mass. App. Ct. 756 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989) (contract disputes and 93A considerations)
Ecological Fibers, Inc. v. Kappa Graphic Bd., B.V., 345 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D. Mass. 2004) (contract claims and 93A analysis)
Anthony’s Pier Four, Inc. v. HBC Assocs., 411 Mass. 451 (Mass. 1991) (bad faith and improper leverage in contract breaches)
Arthur D. Little, Inc. v. Dooyang Corp., 147 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 1998) (bad faith/contract breach leading to 93A concerns)
Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 219 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992) (unfairness standard under 93A)
Citicorp N.A., Inc. v. Ogden Martin Systs. of Haverhill, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 2d 72 (D. Mass. 1998) (contract interpretation and 93A implications)
Levings v. Forbes & Wallace, Inc., 396 N.E.2d 149 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979) (unfairness in 93A context)
Milliken & Co. v. Duro Textiles, LLC, 451 Mass. 547 (Mass. 2008) (contract disputes and 93A)
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard; plausibility)