Novo Nordisk v BT and others: High Court approves dynamic blocking order targeting counterfeit Ozempic websites

The Intellectual Property List of the Chancery Division has granted Novo Nordisk a "dynamic blocking" order against six major internet service providers, enabling the pharmaceutical company to designate counterfeit medicinal product websites for blocking without returning to court each time.

Mr Justice Adam Johnson delivered judgement on 23 June 2026 in Novo Nordisk A/S and Anor v British Telecommunications Plc and Ors [2026] EWHC 1535 (Ch), varying an existing order made by Mellor J in October 2025 that required BT, EE, Plusnet, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media to block websites selling counterfeit and unlicensed versions of the Applicants' semaglutide products, OZEMPIC and WEGOVY.

Background and the dynamic blocking mechanism

The original order has proved effective, with UK consumer traffic to all but one of the initial four target websites declining sharply. The Applicants have since identified over 130 further websites promoting counterfeit or unlicensed semaglutide and cagrilintide products to UK consumers, with wrongdoers also attempting to circumvent the existing block through mirror domain registrations.

The present application added seven further target websites and introduced the dynamic blocking mechanism. Under this structure, Novo Nordisk may self-certify websites against designated criteria set out in a confidential schedule, then notify the ISPs, who are required to block the sites without a further court order. The criteria are kept confidential to prevent wrongdoers navigating around them. The ISPs, whose costs of compliance are met, do not oppose the arrangement.

The wrongdoing encompasses both infringement of the Applicants' registered trade marks and passing off, and criminal conduct under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, including the sale of prescription-only medicines without authorisation and the unlawful advertising of such products. Much of the activity has been linked to organised crime gangs operating anonymously from abroad.

The court's analysis

Adam Johnson J acknowledged initial scepticism about the propriety of the dynamic blocking mechanism, particularly where certain permutations of the criteria might not engage Novo Nordisk's private intellectual property rights, leaving only regulatory and criminal wrongdoing as the basis for the order. He nevertheless concluded the structure was sound in principle and appropriate on the facts.

Drawing on Cartier International AG v British Telecommunications plc [2018] UKSC 28, the judge confirmed that the jurisdiction to make orders against third parties who have unwittingly facilitated wrongdoing extends well beyond information disclosure to encompass orders requiring positive action to prevent wrongdoing continuing, and that website blocking orders fall squarely within it.

On the criminal wrongdoing issue, the judge drew on Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Limited [2002] UKHL 29, in which Lord Woolf confirmed that the jurisdiction is not confined to underlying wrongdoing taking the form of a civil wrong. Provided the applicant is a victim of the criminal conduct, there is a sufficient legal basis. On any permutation of the dynamic blocking criteria, the Applicants would be affected by the wrongdoing and meet that threshold.

Three factors justified authorising Novo Nordisk rather than the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to carry out the self-certification exercise: the MHRA's own enforcement efforts had met with limited success; the Applicants had the demonstrated resources and diligence to monitor effectively; and, critically, the MHRA actively supported the initiative, confirming significant alignment between the proposed criteria and those applied by its own Criminal Enforcement Unit.

The order retains existing safeguards, including a sunset clause and a requirement that target website operators be notified where practicable, with liberty to apply to vary or revoke the order.

Jaani Riordan (instructed by Covington & Burling LLP) for the Applicants. The Respondents did not attend and were not represented.