The High Court has refused an application by Google Ireland Limited and Google Inc. to strike out Ryanair Limited’s competition law claims in a dispute also involving Vacaciones eDreams S.L.
Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern delivered the ruling on 16 February 2017. The motion concerned paragraphs 50 to 61 of Ryanair’s amended statement of claim. The defendants argued those paragraphs disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were frivolous or vexatious, or were bound to fail.
Ryanair’s wider action seeks declarations, injunctions and other relief, including damages, over alleged infringement of its intellectual property rights. Its amended claim also alleges breaches of EU and Irish competition law. Ryanair alleges that Google held a dominant position in internet search and online search advertising, abused that position, and entered an anti-competitive agreement with eDreams.
The defendants argued that the competition claim was effectively a repackaged trademark claim. They said it sought to extend the exclusivity Ryanair could claim under its community trademark and lacked the elements of a separate competition law case. They also warned that allowing it to proceed would increase the cost and length of the trial.
Ryanair maintained that the competition claim stood on its own and had been sufficiently particularised. The judgment described particulars in which Ryanair identified relevant markets, referred to European Commission decisions, and set out its allegations about the effects of the defendants’ conduct on competition. Ryanair also alleged that the agreement was intended to divert consumers searching for flights to eDreams’ website, generating revenue for eDreams and Google.
The judge said the motion raised substantial and complex legal issues, including whether Ryanair could pursue a competition law claim alongside its trademark claim. Those issues were more appropriately considered at a full hearing, the court concluded. At this stage, it could not be said that the competition claim was bound to fail.
The court therefore refused the application to strike out paragraphs 50 to 61. It did not determine whether the alleged conduct breached competition law or infringed Ryanair’s trademark. The judge noted that the trial judge could later find the competition claim indistinguishable from the trademark claim, with any resulting duplication capable of being addressed through costs.