Fake weight-loss medications and new enforcement possibilities

While AI regulation is still evolving, the pharmaceutical sector has long operated within a stringent regulatory framework. Yet the explosive growth of infringing online pharmacies and the proliferation of scams linked to weight-loss medications are reshaping the existing enforcement landscape.

A significant development came with the website-blocking order granted in Novo Nordisk A/S v BT Plc & Ors.

Website blocking in regulated sectors

In May, the English High Court granted Novo Nordisk the first website-blocking order targeting websites selling infringing and unlicensed medicines, setting a new precedent for the online enforcement of pharmaceutical rights.

The order required major UK home broadband providers such as BT, Sky, Virgin Media and others to block access to four websites and any “mirror or successor websites” (together, the “target websites”), selling unlicensed versions of Novo Nordisk’s weight-loss products, as well as other prescription-only medicines.

The target sites were:

1. Viogen Pharma: viogenpharma.com
2. Pharma-Labs: pharma-labz.net / pharma-labs.net / pharma-labs.co.uk
3. Leo Labs: leolab.uk / leolab.io / leolabshop.com / leolab.shop
4. The Steroid Supplier: thesteroidsupplier.com

In the pharmaceutical sector, trade mark protection typically extends to both the manufacturer (Novo Nordisk) and the brands under which medicines are marketed (Ozempic and Wegovy). The active ingredients, including semaglutide and liraglutide, may also be protected by patents covering the compound itself, specific formulations, manufacturing processes, delivery methods and other innovations.

In this case, the target websites were not only found liable for trade mark infringement and passing off, but were also found to be in breach of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 - the latter amounting to criminal conduct.

In that respect, the decision marks a significant expansion of website blocking, moving beyond its traditional use against digital piracy and trade mark abuse to tackle unlawful activity in a regulated sector.

Notably, the case saw the involvement of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which had previously attempted to suspend the infringing sites without success and subsequently supported Novo Nordisk in their website-blocking application.

This highlights how collaboration between rights holders and regulators can unlock new enforcement possibilities, particularly where available web enforcement mechanisms have proven insufficient.

International frameworks and brand owner obligations

Sectors where counterfeit products pose a material risk to public health and safety are typically subject to strict statutory and regulatory frameworks, requiring manufacturers, rights holders and distributors to carry out due diligence to prevent unsafe products from entering the market.

In the UK, the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 make it unlawful to manufacture or supply medicines without the appropriate authorisation. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is responsible for enforcing these rules, ensuring that medicines meet standards of safety, quality and efficacy, and preventing the distribution of harmful substances, incorrect dosages, or placebos. Manufacturers are in turn expected to maintain robust pharmacovigilance systems in relation to their own products, while also addressing potential counterfeits.

Comparable frameworks exist in the EU and US, overseen by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

While brand owners are not under a strict legal obligation to police the open internet, they are expected to safeguard the integrity of their supply chains, report suspected infringements to the relevant authorities, and take reasonable steps to disrupt the sale of counterfeit products.

The collaboration between Novo Nordisk and the MHRA through web enforcement channels and the UK court system clearly demonstrates a shared commitment to public health.

From web enforcement to website blocking and back

Anyone who has worked in web enforcement will know how difficult it can be to shut down fraudulent sites, and how quickly it often becomes a cycle where new websites appear almost as quickly as old ones are removed.

Where it’s not possible to disable infringing websites at source, the alternative is to block access to them. This is the underlying principle of website blocking, whereby internet service providers (ISPs) intervene to prevent access to websites whose "sole or predominant purpose" is to facilitate infringement or other harmful activity.

In the Novo Nordisk court order, website blocking is claimed to reduce UK traffic by up to 98%. Given the market share of the participating ISPs, the actual figure may be somewhat lower, unless the percentage relates specifically to their customer base. Nevertheless, website blocking remains a powerful risk-mitigation tool, and it's encouraging to see its application continuing to evolve in response to new threats.

Blocking orders that provide dynamic injunctions are particularly effective in addressing domain hopping, a common enforcement-evasion tactic where fraudsters move websites to new domain names or constantly launch new sites to continue their operations.

Dynamic blocking works best when:

• The order must be drafted broadly enough to capture all relevant sites;
• The respondent ISPs must account for a significant proportion of UK internet traffic;
• New domains/sites must be promptly detected and communicated to ISPs;
• New blocks must be promptly implemented by ISPs.

The first point is particularly interesting. The Novo Nordisk order expressly refers to “mirror” and “successor” sites. Mirror sites are essentially replicas of an existing website (same content, same functionality, different domain name). Successor sites may not mirror the appearance of the original site yet continue the same infringing operation (different content, same functionality, different domain name).

This distinction is important because it allows the block to move dynamically with the target, rather than being tied to a fixed list of domain names.

The definition may not, however, extend to independent copycat sites, i.e. websites operated by third parties that are not connected with the original infringer, but which replicate its branding elements to freeride its success.

A Google search for weight-loss products advertised on viogenpharma.com (blocked) returns a handful of very similar sites, including viogenlabs.uk, viogenlabs.co.uk, viogenpharmaceuticals.uk, viogenlabs.shop, and viogentropin.com. While these websites may not strictly qualify as "mirror" or "successor" sites, they appear to adopt similar branding and target the same consumer demand.

In our experience, .uk sites are more likely to be suspended by the local registry (Nominet), which has a strong focus on consumer safety. Other registries can be less responsive, depending on the circumstances. More generally, systematic WHOIS and host lookups can quickly identify registrars and hosting providers that are more - or less - responsive, helping rights holders decide on the most effective course of action.

Enhanced website blocking and the role of regulatory bodies

Looking ahead, there may be scope for website-blocking orders to further evolve both in terms of their reach and who can seek them.

One key question is whether the applicant should always be the rights holder. The Court has already shown that it has wide discretion to grant blocking orders, including where the underlying issue involves criminal activity, such as breaches of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.

Under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the High Court can grant an injunction against a service provider “where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright”. The provision does not expressly require the applicant to be the copyright owner.

When Cartier (2014) extended website blocking to trade marks, it did appear to introduce a standing requirement by saying that the operators of the website must be infringing the claimant’s trade marks.

Here, however, Novo Nordisk relied on criminal activity: they were not the “claimant” whose rights were infringed by the criminal activity; they simply brought it to the Court’s attention. Arguably, at least in relation to certain types of wrongdoing, this opens the door to regulators or other interested third parties applying directly for blocking orders.

In the interim, constant watch and fast-track web enforcement

While awaiting further developments, web enforcement remains a fundamental tool to complement website blocking. Whereas the latter often requires a court order (as is the case in the UK) and is inherently geo-specific, web enforcement relies on platform and intermediary abuse policies and has global reach.

Internet monitoring can surface new “mirror” and “successor” sites for inclusion within existing blocking orders, borderline entities that may fall outside the scope of those orders, and new targets for future rounds of website blocking. At the same time, it enables rights holders to disrupt infringing activity and fulfil their regulatory obligations through established web enforcement mechanisms.

The emergence of agentic AI has made it significantly easier to identify infringing websites, assess risk and map connections across multiple domains and related online entities. It also makes it possible to report entire infringing networks through a single workflow while preserving evidence for existing and future website-blocking applications.

We offer this monitoring and enforcement capability as part of our IP service on a subscription basis, alongside trade mark and patent watches and support for website-blocking actions.