A UK judge has for the first time granted a website blocking injunction targeting counterfeit and unlicensed prescription-only medicines. In Novo Nordisk A/S and another v BT plc and others [2026] EWHC 1094 (Ch), Mr Justice Mellor granted a website-blocking injunction against four websites based on trade mark infringement, passing off and criminal offences under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. 

Factual background

Semaglutide is the active ingredient in Novo Nordisk (NN)'s diabetes and anti-obesity medications, marketed under the OZEMPIC, RYBELSUS and WEGOVY trade marks. It is a receptor agonist for glucagon-like peptide 1 (“GLP-1”) which regulates blood sugar levels. NN also market another GLP-1 agonist, liraglutide, under the VICTOZA and SAXENDA trade marks. (These five trade marks will be referred to collectively as the “NN Marks”). These products have been incredibly successful: in 2024 global sales of GLP-1 products were over £17bn.

NN has another product in the pipeline, involving the active ingredient cagrilintide, which is anticipated to be approved and marketed soon. 

NN has regulatory exclusivity to supply semaglutide products in the UK and will do so until patent/SPC expiry in 2031. The exclusivity over cagrilintide will continue for longer.

NN’s applied for a website blocking injunction directed at Viogen Pharma, Pharma-Labs, Leo Labs and The Steroid Supplier. There was clear evidence that these websites were offering, selling and supplying counterfeit or unlicensed versions of NN’s semaglutide, liraglutide and cagrilintide products to UK consumers. The MHRA supported NN in its application after its own attempts to shut down one of the websites had failed.

Overview of the legal framework

Website blocking injunctions in the UK derive from the court's inherent equitable jurisdiction, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2018] UKSC 28. This jurisdiction enables a court to order a facilitator (such as an ISP) to take steps to prevent the commission of a legal wrong by a third party with which they are unwittingly mixed up.

The relevant principles have also been summarised in a line of decisions in the analogous context of injunctions under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The underlying principle is not limited to intellectual property rights.

High Court ruling  

Mellor J heard NN’s application in October 2025 and immediately granted the website blocking order substantially in the terms of the draft submitted. His judgment setting out his reasons was recently published. Key aspects of his judgment include the following:

Unusual features of the application

As the judge noted routine applications for website blocking injunctions are often decided on the papers. However, this application was correctly listed for a hearing due to two unusual but related features:

1. It was understood to be the first application concerned with the supply of counterfeit and unlicensed prescription-only medicinal products; and
2. The advertising and offering for sale of unlicensed prescription-only medicines is a criminal offence under the Human Medicine Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”).

The Court’s power to grant injunctions

The judge considered that NN’s application fell within the principles applied in Cartier SC and did not represent a new category of injunction. This form of relief had evolved over time with injunctions being issued in new circumstances when the principles underlying the existing law so required.

Offences committed under the Regulations comprised wrongdoing which could suffice to give the court jurisdiction, since the court's jurisdiction was derived from ordinary principles of equity and for which there was no relevant distinction between being mixed up in a civil or a criminal wrong (Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd [2002] UKHL). NN had the requisite standing to obtain a blocking injunction based on wrongdoing under the Regulations, not least because of the MHRA's support.

The Wrongdoing relied upon

NN relied upon trade mark infringement, passing off and breaches of the Regulations. Counterfeit products sold under or by reference to the NN Marks were a straightforward infringement of the registered trade marks. Mellor J was also satisfied that the target websites were passing off their unlicensed forms of semaglutide and liraglutide as and for products made and/or authorised by NN.

The judge looked in more detail at the wrongdoing relied upon under the Regulations. He found from the evidence that each target website was committing multiple criminal offences under the Regulations. This included selling unauthorised medicinal products (regulation 46), selling prescription-only medicines without a valid prescription (regulations 214 and 220), and publishing unlawful advertisements for unauthorised medicines (regulations 279 and 284). 

Mellor J concluded that the websites were engaged in systematic contraventions of the Regulations by advertising, offering and selling prescription-only medicinal products, falsified versions of those products that were not licensed for sale in the UK, and products which had not been granted any authorisation, or which were controlled substances whose sale in the UK was categorically illegal. Such contraventions applied to substantially all of the products being advertised and sold, and which the ISPs’ services enabled to be accessed and purchased by UK consumers.

Jurisdiction to grant the Order

Mellor J considered that the four threshold requirements set out in Cartier SL were met:

• First: it was clear that the respondent ISPs were service providers within the meaning of regulation 2 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2013);
• Second and Third: the services of the ISPs had been used to infringe the NN Marks, commit passing off, and commit serious violations of the 2012 Regulations.
• Fourth: the ISPs had actual knowledge of the infringing use of their services, at least through service of the evidence filed in support of NN’s application.

Proportionality and discretion

The proportionality of a website blocking order is a key factor in a court’s determination of whether to use its discretion to grant the order sought. Here NN relied on a number of points, all of which were accepted by Mellor J, including the substantial health risks from the continued supply of the medicines by the target websites. Blocking was likely to be highly effective, with previous cases demonstrating a 98% average reduction of UK website visitors following an order.  NN had also attempted to engage with the website operators, as had the MHRA, which had been unsuccessful mainly as the websites were operated anonymously using overseas service providers.

Mellor J concluded that while NN’s application sought to address a new form of online wrongdoing, he was entirely satisfied that the order was proportionate for essentially similar reasons to those accepted by the court in Cartier SC, Nintendo and the other section 97A cases. Consequently, he found that it was appropriate to exercise his discretion to make an order in the terms proposed. 

The order (which the ISPs had not resisted) included the same safeguards as in previous orders, including notification provisions, liberty to apply, and a two-year sunset clause. NN was to bear the implementation costs, again consistent with the Cartier SC principles. 

Key takeaways

This is the first website blocking order in the UK concerning counterfeit prescription-only medicinal products, and it is clear that public health concerns were a key factor leading to the order. It will be interesting to see if it results in similar applications by pharmaceutical companies in their efforts to combat online sales of such products.

Mellor J’s judgment demonstrates how the courts can extend the equitable discretion to deal with new situations, which is consistent with how blocking injunctions have evolved over the years. The judge was very clear that it nevertheless fell within the principles applied in Cartier SC and did not represent a new category of injunction.