UK court weighs in to stop counterfeit pharmaceuticals with dynamic website blocking orders

Novo Nordisk, the pharmaceutical company behind the blockbuster diabetes and anti-obesity medicines Ozempic and Wegovy, has been granted a website ‘dynamic blocking’ order by the UK court. The order represents a significant development in the courts’ approach to online enforcement, allowing Novo Nordisk to identify and ‘self-certify’ the illegitimacy of further websites that facilitate the distribution of counterfeit medicines, without having to return to court each time such a website is identified.    

Background: the first blocking order

In October 2025, Mr Justice Mellor ordered a number of internet service providers (ISPs) to take steps to block four identified ‘Target Websites’, which were implicated in the selling of counterfeit and unlicensed medicinal products to UK consumers, including versions of Novo Nordisk’s semaglutide products as well as other prescription-only medicines (see Novo Nordisk A/S v British Telecommunications Plc [2026] EWHC 1094 (Ch)). Website blocking orders have traditionally been used to tackle online piracy and the sale of counterfeit goods. Their application in the context of counterfeit medicines reflects the courts’ willingness to adapt established enforcement tools to emerging online harms.

In considering the legal basis for the injunction, Mr Justice Mellor had to determine whether the UK courts had jurisdiction to make such orders, not only on the usual basis of Novo Nordisk’s trade mark rights, but also because of potential criminal wrongdoing under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (the 2012 Regulations). Mr Justice Mellor considered that any form of civil or criminal wrongdoing was a sufficient basis for such an order: the case of Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Limited [2002] UKHL 2 confirmed that ‘the Court’s jurisdiction is derived from ordinary principles of equity, in which there is no relevant distinction between being mixed up in a civil or a criminal wrong’.

The dynamic blocking order

On 23 June 2026, the UK’s High Court handed down a second judgment (Novo Nordisk A/S and another v British Telecommunications plc and others [2026] EWHC 1535 (Ch). It extended the blocking order to seven additional Target Websites and, more significantly, granted Novo Nordisk the right to implement a ‘dynamic blocking mechanism’. Under that mechanism, Novo Nordisk can self-certify further Target Websites that meet criteria set out in a confidential schedule to the order without having to return to court to vary it. Where the criteria are met, Novo Nordisk can notify third-party ISPs to take steps to prevent wrongdoing by the Target Websites.

Mr Justice Adam Johnson recognised that operators of unlawful websites had sought to evade the original order by creating ‘mirror domains’. Evidence before the court also suggested that more than 130 further websites were promoting counterfeit or unlicensed medicines to UK consumers. In those circumstances, the court considered that a more flexible enforcement mechanism was required.

Mr Justice Adam Johnson noted that, whilst there are no reported cases dealing with dynamic blocking orders, he had been given examples of two cases in which they applied to football matches and other subscription-based broadcast content, and in cases such as the present one, the law should be able to adapt to evolving circumstances.

Did the order give Novo Nordisk enforcement rights equivalent to that of a public body – and if so, was this justified?

In considering the proposed dynamic blocking order, the court specifically addressed the issue of the jurisdiction of the court in relation to potential criminal wrongdoing. Unlike the first website blocking order, which was made on the basis of both the private rights of Novo Nordisk (infringement and passing off) and alleged criminality under the 2012 Regulations, the judge noted that Novo Nordisk’s private (trade mark) rights might not be engaged at all when tackling newly-discovered websites, with the implication that the grant of the order would theoretically give Novo Nordisk the power to act as a ‘form of private enforcement agency’, targeting criminal activity. Novo Nordisk’s role in self-certifying whether the blocking criteria were met would essentially involve assessing whether there had been breaches of the 2012 Regulations, a role that might properly belong to the UK medicines regulator, the MHRA.

However, the judge was ultimately satisfied that the order could still be granted in a case in which no civil wrongdoing was relied upon, justifying it on the basis of the following factors:

• the MHRA’s previous attempts at closing down such websites had not been met with success, despite the MHRA’s significant resources;
• Novo Nordisk would itself be harmed by such future online criminality and it had the appropriate skills and resources to carry out relevant ongoing monitoring, with ‘an impressive degree of rigour and diligence’; and
• the MHRA had confirmed that there was significant alignment between the proposed blocking order and the activity of its own Criminal Enforcement Unit. Furthermore, the MHRA was supportive of initiatives aimed at protecting the online environment and preventing the illegal sale of medicines to UK consumers.

Proportionality

Finally, the court was also satisfied that there was no real risk of ‘over-blocking’, or impacting genuine commercial online activity, ie whether the order being made was proportionate, deciding that any conceivable interest of the Target Websites’ operators was clearly outweighed by the interests of the public and the MHRA in maintaining high standards of public health.

Takeaways

This decision is an important development in the English courts’ approach to online enforcement.

First, it demonstrates the courts’ willingness to grant dynamic blocking relief where traditional website blocking orders are vulnerable to circumvention through mirror websites and newly registered domains.

Secondly, the judgment confirms that blocking orders may be available in cases centred on criminal wrongdoing, even where private intellectual property rights may not be directly engaged in relation to every Target Website.

Finally, the decision is likely to be of interest well beyond the pharmaceutical sector. Rights holders and organisations facing rapidly evolving online misconduct may increasingly look to dynamic blocking mechanisms as an effective means of combating unlawful activity at scale.

Please contact any of the authors at Penningtons Manches Cooper for further information or assistance in seeking dynamic website blocking orders from the UK courts.

This article was co-written by Georgia Morris, trainee solicitor in the IP, IT and commercial team.