The High Court’s decision in Novo Nordisk v BT marks an important development in the use of website blocking injunctions, extending a well-established remedy into the health arena. Traditionally associated with copyright infringement and counterfeit luxury goods, the Court in this case confirmed that blocking injunctions can be deployed to combat the online sale of counterfeit and unlicensed prescription-only medicine — an issue of increasing importance for pharmaceutical companies grappling with illicit online supply chains.
Growth in counterfeit GLP-1 products and online pharmacies
The case arose against the backdrop of an expanding global market for GLP-1 medicines such as semaglutide (marketed by Novo Nordisk under brands including OZEMPIC and WEGOVY). High demand combined with limited supply has led to a proliferation of illicit online pharmacies.
Novo Nordisk presented evidence that a number of websites were offering counterfeit or unlicensed versions of its products. These ranged from products falsely bearing Novo Nordisk branding through to unlicensed “lookalike” versions and products containing entirely different active ingredients.
The risks to health are significant. The Court heard evidence that falsified products may contain impurities or incorrect dosages, and that serious adverse health effects had been linked to such products.
Importantly, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) had already attempted, with limited success, to have the websites suspended, ultimately seeking assistance from Novo Nordisk.
Using blocking injunctions to target illicit sales of medicines
Rather than pursuing the operators of the websites directly, who may be anonymous or based overseas, Novo Nordisk sought an order against major UK internet service providers (ISPs), including BT, Sky and Virgin Media, requiring them to block access to the offending sites. The grounds for the injunction included infringement of registered trade marks, passing off, and also breaches of the Medicines Regulations.
The case demonstrated that the Court’s jurisdiction to grant website blocking injunctions can extend beyond intellectual property infringement to combat regulatory and criminal wrongdoing.
Drawing on established principles from Cartier and other IP cases, the Court confirmed that blocking injunctions are not confined to IP rights. They may also be granted where ISPs are “mixed up” in wrongdoing that includes breaches of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, such as the unlawful advertising and sale of prescription-only medicines.
This clearly shows that regulatory breaches can be sufficient grounds for equitable relief against intermediaries, even where those intermediaries are not themselves at fault.
An important tool for the life sciences sector
The judgment shows that a website blocking injunction in England and Wales can specifically target counterfeit and unlicensed medicines.
While the underlying legal mechanism is not new, its application in this context represents a meaningful extension. It reflects a recognition that usual enforcement tools, such as regulatory takedowns or direct action against infringers, may be ineffective in a global, fast moving digital marketplace.
Blocking injunctions, while not removing offending websites from the internet, can prevent UK users from reaching them through mainstream ISPs. This offers a powerful tool where other enforcement efforts may not succeed.
Key factors in favour of an injunction
The decision to grant an injunction was influenced by a combination of factors:
- Clear evidence of wrongdoing: the sale and promotion of unlicensed prescription-only medicines is a criminal offence under the Human Medicines Regulations
- Consumer deception: the websites gave the impression of legitimacy, including false claims of regulatory compliance
- Serious public health risks: counterfeit GLP-1 medicines have been shown to include harmful substances and to cause significant harm, including severe adverse events
Overall, the Court was satisfied that the injunction would be proportionate, targeting specific websites and allowing for extension to mirror or successor sites, a common feature in this type of relief.
Early evidence of effectiveness
The written form of the judgment took some time to produce, although confirmation that the injunction would be granted was given at the time of the hearing in October 2025. In a postscript to the written judgment, the judge noted that the blocking order was already proving effective in reducing access to the targeted websites.
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.