Novo Nordisk manufactures semaglutide-based medicines marketed under the brands Ozempic, Wegovy and Rybelsus. Novo Nordisk applied for a website blocking order concerning four websites that were advertising and selling counterfeit and unlicensed versions of its prescription-only medicines to UK consumers. While such applications are routinely decided on the papers, this was listed for a hearing as it was a first in the context of counterfeit and unlicensed prescription-only medicines. Further, since the advertising and offering for sale of unlicensed prescription-only medicines constitutes a criminal offence under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, the case raised important questions about jurisdiction and standing.

On jurisdiction, the court confirmed that its powers to grant website blocking injunctions were not just limited to intellectual property infringement. Any form of civil or criminal wrongdoing will suffice.

On standing, the judge declined to set any criteria, finding that Novo Nordisk clearly had the necessary standing, noting in particular that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) supported the application.

Finally, the court was satisfied that the order was proportionate. In particular, the court noted that (1) website blocking injunctions reduce UK visitor by an average of 98%, (2) there were no lawful products found on any of the websites, and (3) the order was to the UK public’s health benefit and protection.

The decision is significant for pharmaceutical rights-holders. It confirms that the website blocking injunction framework is not confined to intellectual property infringement and can be deployed where counterfeit or unlicensed medicines are being sold online, particularly where the medicines regulator has itself been unable to secure removal of the offending websites.

Case details at a glance

Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Decision level: High Court
Parties: Novo Nordisk & anr v British Telecommunications PLC & ors
Date: 13 May 2026
Citation: [2026] EWHC 1094 (Ch)
Decision: dycip.com/2026-ewhc-1094-ch