


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
Oct 23, 2025
1 min read
Lizzo Sued for Copyright Infringement
Documents were filed in California on Tuesday

Policy & Legal
Oct 22, 2025
1 min read
Ticket Fees in New York Have Surged by 36% Since 2016
The figure comes from a recent study by NITO

Policy & Legal
Oct 20, 2025
1 min read
Ticketmaster to Implement Major Operational Changes in Response to FTC Lawsuit
Two primary shifts include banning users from running multiple accounts and shutting down TradeDesk

Lizzo Sued for Copyright Infringement
Documents were filed in California on Tuesday

Rod Yates
Policy
Oct 23, 2025

Ticket Fees in New York Have Surged by 36% Since 2016
The figure comes from a recent study by NITO

Rod Yates
Policy
Oct 22, 2025

Ticketmaster to Implement Major Operational Changes in Response to FTC Lawsuit
Two primary shifts include banning users from running multiple accounts and shutting down TradeDesk

Harry Levin
Policy
Oct 20, 2025

Ticketing Alliance FEAT Unveils Anti-Scalping Policy For Europe
The alliance met in Barcelona on Friday 17 October

Rod Yates
Policy
Oct 20, 2025

Temu Seeks to Dismiss Lawsuit Over Bootleg MF Doom Merch
Claims it isn’t responsible for independent sellers on its platform

Rod Yates
Policy
Oct 20, 2025

Egyptian NGO Pursues Legal Action to End Concerts at the Pyramids
The complaint claims that loud music can adversely affect the structural integrity of the historic landmarks

Harry Levin
Policy
Oct 20, 2025



