


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
Jan 27, 2026
1 min read
Music Publisher Wixen Sues Meta, Claiming Brazen Tactics to Replace Songwriters with AI
The publisher says Meta has been strong-arming the publisher to take incredibly low royalties

Policy & Legal
Jan 27, 2026
1 min read
Neptunes’ Pharrell Williams and Chad Hugo in Royalty Dispute
Hugo alleges his former production partner owes him $1 million

Policy & Legal
Jan 26, 2026
1 min read
Kid Rock to Appear Before US Senate on Ticketing and Scalping
The hearing will focus on ticket sales practices and the impact of bots

Music Publisher Wixen Sues Meta, Claiming Brazen Tactics to Replace Songwriters with AI
The publisher says Meta has been strong-arming the publisher to take incredibly low royalties

Harry Levin
Policy
Jan 27, 2026

Neptunes’ Pharrell Williams and Chad Hugo in Royalty Dispute
Hugo alleges his former production partner owes him $1 million

Rod Yates
Policy
Jan 27, 2026

Kid Rock to Appear Before US Senate on Ticketing and Scalping
The hearing will focus on ticket sales practices and the impact of bots

Rod Yates
Policy
Jan 26, 2026

NVIDIA Accused of Training Its AI on Anna’s Archive
The allegation follows its “responsible AI” deal with UMG

Rod Yates
Policy
Jan 26, 2026

Jason Aldean, Cyndi Lauper Lead Responsible AI Declaration
800 creatives declare “stealing our work is not innovation”

Rod Yates
Policy
Jan 23, 2026

Eventim Germany to Issue €20 Vouchers to Customers Following Lawsuit
The class action related to COVID-era refunds

Rod Yates
Policy
Jan 21, 2026




