


Slipknot Fights to Reclaim Slipknot.com from Alleged Cybersquatter
The third party has controlled the domain since 2001
Heavy metal band Slipknot is suing the alleged cybersquatter who registered the slipknot.com domain in 2001. The band alleges the anonymous party is using it in bad faith, violating US cybersquatting laws and infringing their trademarks.
The details:
The unknown third party registered slipknot.com on 5 February 2001, forcing the band to use slipknot1.com.
In its lawsuit, Slipknot states their logo was first registered with the US trademark registry in 2002, with the band beginning the process in 1999.
As part of that process, it claims a ‘first use’ date of 4 April 1996.
The band argues that when the unknown party registered slipknot.com in 2001, its name was already famous and the group was in the process of registering its logo.
As a result, it claims, the registration of slipknot.com was intended to profit off the band’s brand.
Cybersquatting:
As per Complete Music Update, owning a trademark in a specific name doesn’t give the owner the right to own that name “in the context of an internet domain.”
However, the US Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act can offer protection to a trademark owner if it’s proved that a “third party registered and operates a domain that features the trademark in bad faith.”
slipknot.com currently contains buttons linking off to ticketing websites and unofficial Slipknot merch.
The band claims that the owner of the domain earns money from the operators of the linked sites.
The owner is, the band states, facilitating “the sale of unauthorized and counterfeit Slipknot goods by third-party websites.”
The lawsuit alleges the owner is violating the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act by “using a domain name that is identical to the Slipknot mark with a bad faith to profit therefrom.”
The ask:
Slipknot is seeking a court order transferring ownership of slipknot.com to the band.
It is also suing for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Heavy metal band Slipknot is suing the alleged cybersquatter who registered the slipknot.com domain in 2001. The band alleges the anonymous party is using it in bad faith, violating US cybersquatting laws and infringing their trademarks.
The details:
The unknown third party registered slipknot.com on 5 February 2001, forcing the band to use slipknot1.com.
In its lawsuit, Slipknot states their logo was first registered with the US trademark registry in 2002, with the band beginning the process in 1999.
As part of that process, it claims a ‘first use’ date of 4 April 1996.
The band argues that when the unknown party registered slipknot.com in 2001, its name was already famous and the group was in the process of registering its logo.
As a result, it claims, the registration of slipknot.com was intended to profit off the band’s brand.
Cybersquatting:
As per Complete Music Update, owning a trademark in a specific name doesn’t give the owner the right to own that name “in the context of an internet domain.”
However, the US Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act can offer protection to a trademark owner if it’s proved that a “third party registered and operates a domain that features the trademark in bad faith.”
slipknot.com currently contains buttons linking off to ticketing websites and unofficial Slipknot merch.
The band claims that the owner of the domain earns money from the operators of the linked sites.
The owner is, the band states, facilitating “the sale of unauthorized and counterfeit Slipknot goods by third-party websites.”
The lawsuit alleges the owner is violating the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act by “using a domain name that is identical to the Slipknot mark with a bad faith to profit therefrom.”
The ask:
Slipknot is seeking a court order transferring ownership of slipknot.com to the band.
It is also suing for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Heavy metal band Slipknot is suing the alleged cybersquatter who registered the slipknot.com domain in 2001. The band alleges the anonymous party is using it in bad faith, violating US cybersquatting laws and infringing their trademarks.
The details:
The unknown third party registered slipknot.com on 5 February 2001, forcing the band to use slipknot1.com.
In its lawsuit, Slipknot states their logo was first registered with the US trademark registry in 2002, with the band beginning the process in 1999.
As part of that process, it claims a ‘first use’ date of 4 April 1996.
The band argues that when the unknown party registered slipknot.com in 2001, its name was already famous and the group was in the process of registering its logo.
As a result, it claims, the registration of slipknot.com was intended to profit off the band’s brand.
Cybersquatting:
As per Complete Music Update, owning a trademark in a specific name doesn’t give the owner the right to own that name “in the context of an internet domain.”
However, the US Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act can offer protection to a trademark owner if it’s proved that a “third party registered and operates a domain that features the trademark in bad faith.”
slipknot.com currently contains buttons linking off to ticketing websites and unofficial Slipknot merch.
The band claims that the owner of the domain earns money from the operators of the linked sites.
The owner is, the band states, facilitating “the sale of unauthorized and counterfeit Slipknot goods by third-party websites.”
The lawsuit alleges the owner is violating the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act by “using a domain name that is identical to the Slipknot mark with a bad faith to profit therefrom.”
The ask:
Slipknot is seeking a court order transferring ownership of slipknot.com to the band.
It is also suing for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
👋 Disclosures & Transparency Block
This story was written with information from Complete Music Update.
We covered it because it’s a lawsuit involving a high-profile band in Slipknot.
📨 Subscribe to NIF
Get news dropped in your inbox 👇
📨 Subscribe to NIF
Get news dropped in your inbox 👇
Related Articles

Policy & Legal
Nov 14, 2025
1 min read
Radiohead, Coldplay, and Other Major UK Artists Call for Ticket Price Cap
The headlining acts signed an open letter to the government requesting a cap on resale ticket prices

Policy & Legal
Nov 13, 2025
1 min read
Downtown Music Holdings Faces New $375 Million Lawsuit Amidst UMG Deal Probe
YouTube royalty platform Blast Off Media filed the new lawsuit

Policy & Legal
Nov 11, 2025
1 min read
German Court Rules ChatGPT Illegally Used Song Lyrics for AI Training
This is the first time a court in Europe has ruled in favor of creators whose works were used to train generative AI

Radiohead, Coldplay, and Other Major UK Artists Call for Ticket Price Cap
The headlining acts signed an open letter to the government requesting a cap on resale ticket prices

Harry Levin
Policy
Nov 14, 2025

Downtown Music Holdings Faces New $375 Million Lawsuit Amidst UMG Deal Probe
YouTube royalty platform Blast Off Media filed the new lawsuit

Harry Levin
Policy
Nov 13, 2025

German Court Rules ChatGPT Illegally Used Song Lyrics for AI Training
This is the first time a court in Europe has ruled in favor of creators whose works were used to train generative AI

Harry Levin
Policy
Nov 11, 2025

Music Publishers Move to Reopen Lawsuit Against the NBA
The complaint states that the professional sports organization illegally used music in social media videos

Harry Levin
Policy
Nov 10, 2025

Spotify Faces Class Action Lawsuit Alleging “Pay For Play” Discovery Mode
The claim states that third-party payments can influence music placements in Discovery Mode and editorial playlists

Harry Levin
Policy
Nov 6, 2025

Suno Sued by Danish Songwriter Collecting Society Koda
It alleges “the biggest theft in music history”

Rod Yates
Policy
Nov 5, 2025



