Slipknot, the band, has voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit filed against the owner of Slipknot.com, a website selling unofficial merchandise. The band, legally known as Slipknot, Inc., initially accused the anonymous domain owner of “cybersquatting” and infringing on their brand.
Legal Action and Dismissal
The suit, filed “in rem” – meaning against the domain name itself – alleged that fans seeking official Slipknot merchandise could be misled into purchasing items from Slipknot.com. The band claimed this caused damages. However, on Wednesday, lawyers for Slipknot filed paperwork stating the action was dismissed “without prejudice,” leaving open the possibility of refiling the suit in the future.
The owner of Slipknot.com, identified as Slipknot Online Services, Ltd., responded to the suit in November through lawyer Jeffrey Neuman, stating they were previously unaware of the legal action. The company claims to have owned the domain for 24 years and is based at a post office box in the Grand Caymans.
In January, the company’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Slipknot waited too long to bring the claim, given the band’s debut album was released in 1999. Shortly after, Slipknot’s lawyers filed for dismissal.
Implications and Next Steps
Representatives for Slipknot, who maintain an official website at Slipknot1.com, declined to comment on the dismissal. Lawyers for Slipknot Online Services, Ltd. have not yet responded to requests for comment. Slipknot.com remains online, though currently displays a message stating “No valid delivery channels available for this domain” and is copyrighted 2025.
While the current suit has been dropped, Slipknot could potentially revive the case in the future. Alternatively, the band may choose to focus on other methods of protecting its brand and preventing the sale of unauthorized merchandise.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was Slipknot’s primary complaint against Slipknot.com?
Slipknot alleged that Slipknot.com was selling unofficial merchandise, including “cheap promo products” and “costume masks,” potentially misleading fans into believing they were purchasing authorized goods.
What does it mean to file a lawsuit “in rem”?
Filing “in rem” means the lawsuit was directed against the domain name itself, rather than the individual or entity that registered it. Domain Name Wire reports this is a common tactic in cybersquatting cases.
Could Slipknot pursue legal action against Slipknot.com again?
Yes, because the lawsuit was dismissed “without prejudice,” Slipknot retains the right to refile the suit at a later date.
As brands increasingly rely on online presence, how important do you think it is for artists to actively protect their digital identities?
