Ryanair DAC has initiated legal proceedings against Spanish company eDreams Odigeo SA, part of the eDO group, and its subsidiary, Vacaciones eDreams SL. These entities operate multiple websites, including eDreams, Opodo, Govoyages, and Travellink.

Ryanair is seeking various orders, including an injunction to stop the defendants from breaching its terms of use, misrepresenting their services, engaging in passing off, or infringing the airline’s intellectual property rights. Ryanair is also seeking damages. The defendants have denied the allegations.

On Monday, Ryanair attempted to have the case admitted to the Commercial Court’s fast-track list. However, eDreams objected, arguing that there had been a delay in filing the proceedings.

Senior Counsel Martin Hayden, representing Ryanair, contended there was no undue delay, explaining that the airline had been managing other legal actions against online travel agencies in Spain and Germany, which were relevant to the Irish proceedings.

Hayden noted that all the cases involve similar conduct, with online agencies often outsourcing screen scraping to third parties. Efforts to prevent this practice had been circumvented, he said. Instead of targeting smaller operators, Ryanair had prioritized cases against larger companies like Onthebeach, which led to lengthy litigation but eventually resulted in distribution agreements with four agencies.

Negotiations with eDreams, however, had failed.

In Spain, Ryanair had been prohibited from labeling online agencies as “pirates,” but Hayden described them as “parasitic enterprises”

profiting at the airline’s expense. He claimed customers using these agencies paid up to 200% more for services like baggage and seat reservations due to hidden markups in their “prime” services.

Michael Howard SC, representing the defendants, argued that delays in filing commercial cases impact the efficient use of court resources. “A plaintiff cannot litigate at their leisure,” he said. Howard added that Ryanair had implemented sophisticated blocking measures to prevent the agencies from selling its flights and had delayed both initiating and pursuing the case.

Mr. Justice Mark Sanfey declined Ryanair’s request to fast-track the case, meaning it will proceed through the High Court’s standard process.

While acknowledging that commercial factors can justify some delays, he stated Ryanair should have initiated proceedings immediately after negotiations with eDreams broke down in March.

In a responding affidavit, Guillaume Teissonniere, general counsel and company secretary of the eDO group, denied Ryanair’s claims. He stated that eDreams had refused to accept the “unreasonable terms” imposed on other agencies that signed distribution agreements with Ryanair. While some agencies may have accepted these terms to end what he described as Ryanair’s “coercive behavior,” eDreams was unwilling to do so.

This revision preserves the content but enhances clarity and flow.