×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

Smart & BiggarBarrister and Solicitor; Patent and Trademark Agent
Daniel Anthony

Daniel Anthony

Not yet reviewed

55 Metcalfe Street Suite 900, P.O. Box 2999 Station D, Ottawa, ON K1P 5Y6

Domain Names & Internet Law, Litigation, Trademarks and 4 more

About Daniel Anthony

Daniel Anthony is a lawyer practicing domain names & internet law, litigation, trademarks and 4 other areas of law. Daniel received a degree from University of British Columbia in 2000, and has been licensed for 21 years. Daniel practices at Smart & Biggar in Ottawa, ON.

Daniel Anthony (Ottawa, Ontario)

Reviews for Daniel

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Litigation
  • Intellectual Property 1
    • Trademarks
  • Other 5
    • Domain Names & Internet Law
    • Copyright & Media
    • Marketing & Advertising
    • IP Management & Strategic Counselling
    • IP Crime

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Barrister and Solicitor; Patent and Trademark Agent
    Firm Name
    Smart & Biggar
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Experience: Domain Name Arbitration (selected cases)
    Google Inc. v Catherine MacDonald (24 August 2016), DCA-1796-CIRA, [gmailsupport.ca, gmailsupportcanada.ca, gmailsupportnumber.ca]
    Optrex Ltd v Nameshield Inc (17 December 2014), DCA-1612-ClRA, [optrex.ca]
    Guitar Center, lnc v Piperni (27 March 2014), DCA-1570-CIRA, [guitarcenter.ca, laguitarcentre.ca]
    Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc v iCity Corp - Domain Manager (14 November 2013), DTV2013-0004 [gta.tv]
    Intact Financial Corp v Fagan (11 February 2013), 114 CPR (4th) 392, DCA-1450-CIRA, [greypower.ca]
    Intact Financial Corporation v WhoisGuard /Yenta's Bagels (22 October 2012), D2012-1629, [intactinsurancetoronto.com]
    Compagnie D'assurances Belair Inc v Merab (23 May 2011), D2011-0562, [belairdirect.org]
    Microsoft Corp v Guo (2 February 2010), DCA-1211-CIRA [windows7.ca]
    Canada Post Corporation v Alain Lambert, Alfa inc (18 February 2009), D2008-1902, [postecanada.biz, postecanada.com, postecanada.name, postecanada.net, postecanada.org]
    Trademark Opposition (selected cases)
    Duke University v SIR Corp., 2016 TMOB 137 (CanLII)[Opposition to DUKES REFRESHER & Design]
    Gemological Institute of America, Inc c Gemology Headquarters International, LLC, 2013 TMOB 64 (CanLII), [Re Application No. 1,446,354: GIH]
    SiMPACT Strategy Group Inc v Corporate Citizenship Limited, 2013 TMOB 161, [Re Application No. 1,360,804: LBG Logo]
    Pirelli Tyre SpA v Scorpion Racing Inc, 2012 TMOB 83, [Re Application No. 1,315,886: SCORPION RACING & Design]
    Dairy Farmers of Canada v Cytosport, Inc, 2012 TMOB 125 (CanLII), [Re Application Nos. 1,382,642: MUSCLE MLK
    1,402,812: MIGHTY MLK]
    Cook Incorporated v Medical Resources Corporation, 2011 TMOB 151 (CanLII), [Re Application No. 1,272,859: SILHOUETTE]
    Anderson v Smokin Joe Inc, 2010 TMOB 33 (CanLII), [Re Application No. 1,279,373: SMOKING JOE]
    Jemella Group Limited v Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV, 2010 TMOB 35 (CanLII), [Re Application No. 1,306,752: EHD TECHNOLOGY]
    Ajinomoto Co, Inc v Blissful Centany International Limited, 2009 CanLII 90358 (CA TMOB), [Re Application No. 1,277,162: UMAMI]
    Yahoo! Inc v audible.ca inc, 2009 CanLII 90353 (CA TMOB), [Re Application No. 1,231,591: audible.ca]
    Curb v Philobar Design Canada Ltd, 2008 CanLII 88267 (CA TMOB), [Re Application No. 1,203,780: CURB CULTURE]
    Trademark Cancellation (selected cases)
    Ashenmil v Xylem Water Solutions AC, 2016 TMOB 155 (Re Reg. No. TMA480,730 for AQUAVIEW)
    Fetherstonhaugh & Co c TFI Foods Ltd. / Les Aliments TFI Ltee, 2016 TMOB 75 (CanLII), (Re Registration No. TMA673,966: YUTAKA & Design)
    Smart & Biggar v Luftshiffbau Zeppelin GmbH 2016 TMOB 38 (CanLII), (Re Registration No. TMA560,168: ZEPPELIN HINDENBURG)
    Rhodia Operations v Oleon, naamloze vennootschap, 2016 TMOB 10 (CanLII), (Re Reg No. TMA258,027: RADIACID)
    Kaplan v Reckitt Benckiser (Canada) Inc., 2015 TMOB 146 (CanLII), (Re Reg No. TMA342,361: SANI-FLUSH PUCK
    Re Reg No.: SANI FLUSH)
    Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP v Sire Royalty Limited(Re Reg No. TMA704,459: DOLCE DIVA)
    Smart & Biggar v Achar, 2015 TMOB 1 (CanLII), (Re Reg No. TMA439,065: DUREX & Design)
    Ridout & Maybee v SIR Royalty Limited, 2014 TMOB 112 (CanLII), (Re Reg No. TMA418,949: ARMADILLO TEXAS GRILL)
    2169-5762 Quebec inc v Duty Free Shops SA, 2014 TMOB 2 (CanLII), (Re Reg No. TMA716,217: FOLLI FOLLIE]
    Reckitt Benckiser (Canada) Inc v Tritap Food Broker, 2013 TMOB 65 (CanLII), (Re Registration No. 437,374: SCENTSATIONS)
    Smart & Biggar v Rick Worobec, 2012 TMOB 146 (CanLII), (Re Reg No. TMA623750: SOSEXE)
    Smart & Biggar v Vincenzo Greco
    Giuseppina Greco, 2010 TMOB 116 (Re Reg No. TMA556,649: SMILEWORKS)
    Afexa Life Sciences Inc. v. Sepracor Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 2010 TMOB 172, (Re Reg No. TMA588,487: FXT 40)
    Innophos, Inc v Ajinomoto Kabushiki DBA Ajinomoto, 2009 CanLII 90377 (Re Reg No. TMA519,963: ACTIVA)
    Gowling Lafleur Henderson, srl v Cabin Creek, srl (2009), 74 CPR (4th) 62 (Re Reg No. 535,174: MY LEGACY BOOK)
    Federal Court
    Federal Court of Appeal
    Cathay Pacific Airways Limited v Air Miles International Trading BV, 2016 FC 1125
    Cathay Pacific Airways Limited v Air Miles International Trading BV, 2015 FCA 253
    Gemological Institute of America Inc. v. Gemology Headquarters International LLC, 2014 FC 1153
    Air Miles International Trading BV v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd, 2014 FC 549
    Valence Technology Inc v Phostech Lithium Inc, 2011 FCA 237
    Bauer Hockey Corp v Easton Sports Canada Inc, 2011 FCA 83
    Bauer Hockey Corp v Easton Sports Canada Inc, 2010 FC 361
    Microsoft Corp v 9038 3746 Quebec Inc et al (26 November 2008), Montreal T-1502-00 (FC)
    Parmalat Canada Inc v Sysco Corp, 2008 FC 1104
    Letters Rogatory - Ontario Superior Court (selected cases)
    St Jude Medical, Inc v WI-LAN (29 July 2014), Ottawa CV-14-61250 (Ont Sup Ct Jus)
    Toshiba Corp v Derek Nuhn (16 August 2013), Ottawa CV-13-58078 (Ont Sup Ct Jus)
    Toshiba Corp v Cory Houston (16 August 2013), Ottawa CV-13-58079 (Ont Sup Ct Jus)
    Lexmark International, Inc v Greentec International Inc (16 March 2012), Ottawa 11-53255 (Ont Sup Ct Jus)
    Lexmark International, Inc v Multi-Laser Inc (20 October 2006), Ottawa 06-CV-35905 (Ont Sup Ct Jus)
    Lexmark International, Inc v Greentec International Inc (2 November 2006), Ottawa 06-CV-35810 (Ont Sup Ct Jus)

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    2005, Ontario
    2006, Registered Trade-mark Agent
    2007, Registered Patent Agent
    Registered to practise before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
    Memberships

    Professional Involvement

    Memberships
    •fellow, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
    Vice-chair of the Internet Committee
    past member of the International Trademark Issues Committee
    past member of the Litigation Committee
    •Member, International Trademark Association
    •Member, Canadian Bar Association

  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    University of Toronto
    Class of 2004
    J.D.
    Other Education
    University of British Columbia
    Class of 2000
    B.Sc.

    University of British Columbia
    Class of 2000
    Cell Biology and Genetics

Daniel Anthony

Barrister and Solicitor; Patent and Trademark Agent at Smart & Biggar
Not yet reviewed

55 Metcalfe Street Suite 900P.O. Box 2999 Station DOttawa, ON K1P 5Y6Canada

Show on map

Email Daniel Anthony

Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message:
Return to Profile Reset Form
Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions