JUDGMENT

1. The present Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are filed by the respective petitioners impugning the orders dated 11.01.2019 [in WP(C)-IPD 76/2021] and 15.05.2019 [in WP(C)-IPD 55/2021] issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (hereinafter referred to as the `Respondent No.1').

2. The Writ Petitions are being disposed of together as they raise a common issue of interpretation of Sub-section 5 of Section 36E of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (in short `the Act'), being:

"Whether in terms of Section 36E (5) of the Act, failure of the Registrar of Trade Marks to notice its acceptance of extension of the trade marks under international registration where India has been designated to the International Bureau, it shall be deemed that the protection has been extended to the trade mark in spite of the same being opposed within the time for notice of opposition?"

3. The factual background in which the above issue arises, is stated herein under.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF WP(C)-IPD 55/2021

4. The Respondent No. 2, that is, Dermavita Limited, applied for a multi-class trade mark, vide application No. IRDI-3243237, for the mar