Ryanair is seeking to bring Commercial Court proceedings against online booking provider eDreams over alleged breaches of the airline's terms of use through "screen scraping" activities.
Ryanair DAC claims eDreams Odigeo SA and its subsidiary, Vacaciones eDreams SL, are breaching its website terms using the airline's flight data by selling Ryanair flights under brands including eDreams, Opodo, Govoyages, and Travellink.
Both defendant companies are registered in Spain and eDreams Odigeo is the parent company for the eDreams Odigeo group, a large ecommerce provider which operates in 44 countries.
The alleged screen scraping involves accessing the Ryanair website using automated software to extract data without the airline's knowledge or consent, it is claimed.
Ryanair is seeking declarations that this screen scraping is in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 2007 and EU law and eDreams is contractually or otherwise prohibited from engaging in such activity.
It further seeks an order restraining eDreams from using Ryanair data for purposes other than the comparison of the price of Ryanair flights with those of other airlines. It also seeks to restrain the defendants from involving itself in selling or facilitating the sale of Ryanair flights other than by Ryanair itself.
It claims eDreams fails to explain or display the price differential between prices Ryanair charges and those on eDreams websites in a misleading or unfair manner such that there is no, or insufficient, transparency as to the fact the price would be cheaper if purchased directly from the airline.
It further claims the defendants failed to display Ryanair prices in accordance with law.
It seeks damages for matters including breach of contract and/or misrepresentation and/or passing off and/or infringement of trademark.
An application to have the case entered into the High Court's fast track commercial list was adjourned to next month by Mr Justice Mark Sanfey on Monday.
Martin Hayden SC, for Ryanair, made the application for entry but agreed to adjourn it to next month when Michael Howard SC, for the eDreams firms, said his side wanted an opportunity to consider whether to object to entry on grounds of delay.
The question of where is the correct jurisdiction for the case would also have to be addressed, Mr Howard said.