As everyone is aware, Donald Trump was  recently elected president of the United States, and as one of his  first official acts following his inauguration, he canceled his  nation's participation in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).   President Trump's executive order has, for all intents and purposes,  ended the TPP.  Just days ago, President Trump also signaled that he  will be terminating the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA).  The  Canada-US free trade agreement will probably remain in place, at  least for now.  Previous to this, the United Kingdom narrowly voted  in favor of exiting from the European Union (EU).  The results of the  Brexit pole has raised the possibility that other countries,  particularly France may likewise vote to leave the EU (Frexit is the  coined term).  There is considerable Euroscepticism among the French,  with as much as 60% of the population in France having an unfavorable  view of the EU.  The French presidential election is in April of this  year, and Marie Le Pen, a right wing populist politician, has  indicated that the presidential election will be a referendum on  France leaving the EU.  Nor is France the only other country where  political forces are currently re-evaluating EU membership.  There  have been rumblings among the Greeks, the Italians and the Dutch  about leaving the EU.  Even in Germany, allegedly the strongest  supporter of the EU, an increasingly loud minority of people have  been calling for a re-evaluation of German participation in the EU.  While it is far too early to tell if this is a general trend, it is  clear that recent political events have tilted an increasingly large  group of people away from “internationalism”, particularly where  trade is concerned.
 
International economic integration has  been the driving force to harmonize intellectual property laws across  most nations.  As more and more companies have been spreading their  operations among multiple countries, there has been a parallel effort  to ensure that the same intellectual property rights and procedures  are in place in all of the countries likely to be engaged in trade.   For example, in Europe, in addition to national patent and trademark  offices, there is a European patent and trademark office which gives  an applicant an easier path to protect their patent and trademark  rights across multiple European countries.  As part of this  international effort, countries such as Canada and the United States  have amended their intellectual property laws to conform more closely  with those of Europe and Japan.  The recent changes to the Canadian  Trademarks Act which did away with the use requirement for trademark  registration were the result of harmonizing Canadian trademark law  with European trademark law.  I have noted in a previous article that  these recent changes to Canadian trademark law are not, in my  opinion, in the best interests of Canadian businesses.  In another  recent article where I correctly predicted that US President Donald  Trump would cancel the TPP, I stated  that Donald Trump likewise might take aggressive measures to  curb China's alleged misappropriation of American intellectual  property.  Will he amend US patent law to curtail what he sees as  China's unfair exploitation of US intellectual property assets?  Will  his administration roll back recent changes to US patent laws?  No  one knows and he has thus far said little on the subject.
 
Given the recent uncertainty in the political climate in the United States and Europe, I think it's time that we re-evaluate the pace of Canadian intellectual property harmonization with Europe. Will harmonizing our laws to match European laws make sense in a world where the EU is greatly reduced and where the United States becomes increasingly protectionist? If we must harmonize our laws, should we harmonize them with the United States, still our largest trade partner, or with Europe? Given the uncertainty created by recent political events in the United States and Canada, should Canada delay implementing changes to our trademarks act? These are all valid questions. While it is still early in the current political cycle, and it's quite possible that these “protectionist sentiments” may dissipate and vanish within a year, certainly it's time to ask the question, “what's our hurry”? Surely, we can afford to wait a year or two longer before adopting changes which, until quite recently, were made to meet the needs of a different economic and political climate.