As summer bookings peak and millions of UK travellers search for cheap flights, few brand names appear more reliably on comparison sites and booking platforms than Ryanair. Love them or loathe them, and most of us manage a bit of both, Ryanair flights move. Which is precisely why, when Ryanair went to the Irish High Court to stop Skyscanner from displaying its name and fares without permission, the case attracted significant attention. The judgment, handed down in July 2020, asks a question that matters far beyond airlines: can you stop a third-party website from using your brand name to display, compare, or list your products? The answer is more nuanced than most brand owners expect.

What Was the Dispute About?

Ryanair DAC is Europe’s largest low-cost carrier. Skyscanner Ltd operates one of the world’s most widely used flight comparison platforms. The two companies had a commercial relationship: a Licence Agreement signed in 2011 allowed Skyscanner to access Ryanair’s data and display its fares. That agreement expired. Ryanair took the position that Skyscanner had no right to continue listing Ryanair flights after the licence ended.

The trademark claim was central to the dispute. Ryanair argued that Skyscanner was using its registered trademarks, including the word mark RYANAIR, on its website during trade, for economic advantage, without Ryanair’s consent. This was alleged to breach Article 9 of the EU Trademark Regulation 2017/1001 and section 14 of the Trademarks Act 1996. Ryanair also brought claims for breach of its Terms of Use, screen scraping (unauthorised automated extraction of data from its website), passing off, breach of contract, and database rights infringement.

Ryanair applied to the Irish High Court for an interlocutory injunction, asking the court to order Skyscanner to stop displaying Ryanair content immediately, pending a full trial on the merits.

Who Is This Relevant To?

• Any business whose brand name appears on a third-party platform, comparison site, or marketplace without their explicit permission
• Brand owners who licence their data or content to partners and want to control what happens when that licence expires
• SMEs building a digital brand presence who want to understand how trademark law actually works when someone else uses your name online
• Businesses in sectors where aggregators, resellers, or comparison sites regularly display their name and products

What Was the Outcome?

Mr Justice Twomey, sitting in the Irish High Court Commercial Division, refused the injunction. Skyscanner was not required to remove Ryanair’s content or stop displaying its name pending the full trial. The proceedings on trademark infringement, breach of contract, screen scraping, and the other claims were listed to proceed to a full hearing.

Why Was That the Outcome?

The court applied the framework established in Merck Sharp & Dohme v Clonmel Healthcare [2019] IESC 65, the leading Irish authority on interlocutory injunctions and broadly equivalent to the American Cyanamid test applied in England and Wales. The first question under that framework is whether the applicant has established a sufficiently strong case to justify restraining the defendant before trial.

On the trademark claim, the court found Ryanair had only an arguable case, not a strong one. The reason was Skyscanner’s referential use defence. Under Article 14(1)(c) of the EU Trademark Regulation, a trademark owner cannot prevent a third party from using the mark to identify or refer to the owner’s own goods or services, provided that use is in accordance with honest commercial practices. Skyscanner’s position was that displaying “Ryanair” on a comparison platform, to show Ryanair’s own flights to consumers comparing prices, is precisely the kind of referential use the law permits. The court found this defence was at least arguable, which was sufficient to prevent the trademark claim from satisfying the strong case threshold.

The nature of the injunction also counted against Ryanair. What was sought was effectively a mandatory injunction, requiring Skyscanner to actively remove existing content and reconfigure its platform, rather than a prohibitory one simply stopping Skyscanner from doing something new. Courts apply a higher threshold to mandatory injunctions because they require positive action before trial. The balance of convenience also weighed against grant: passengers searching for Ryanair flights on Skyscanner were being helped to find them. If there was genuine commercial damage, Ryanair had other means of addressing it, including its own direct booking platform and updated Terms of Use. A worldwide injunction requiring ongoing court supervision was disproportionate at the interlocutory stage.

How Could This Information Help You?

If your brand name appears on a third-party platform without your permission:

Trademark law alone may not be enough to force an immediate takedown. The referential use defence exists specifically to allow third parties to mention your brand when discussing or comparing your own products. A competitor using your mark to sell their own products is infringement. A comparison site using your name to list your own services may not be. Understanding that distinction matters before you write an enforcement letter or apply for an injunction. Get specialist advice on whether your claim is strong enough to meet the interlocutory threshold, because the costs of an unsuccessful application can be significant.

If you rely on licensing agreements to control your brand online:

This case is a reminder that contractual controls, properly drafted, can be more reliable than trademark law alone when it comes to governing how third parties use your data and brand. When the licence expired, Ryanair lost its contractual leverage and was left arguing trademark infringement in circumstances where the referential use defence was available. If you allow others to use your brand through a licence, set out exactly what is permitted, what is not, and what happens when the agreement ends. Take legal advice on whether your Terms of Use are enforceable alongside any licence, because they may become your primary line of defence.

If you are an SME building a brand online:

Register your trademarks early. Understand what the referential use exception means in practice before you send a cease-and-desist letter. And ensure your website Terms of Use are professionally drafted, because they can form part of your legal toolkit if you ever need to control how a third party uses your brand, your data, or your content.

If you work with authorised resellers or licensed partners:

The Ryanair case is a precise illustration of what can go wrong when a licensing arrangement ends without proper monitoring in place. Authorised resellers and partners will naturally appear in trademark monitoring results because they legitimately use your brand to sell your products. A good monitoring service keeps them on an exclusion list so they do not fill your reports with false positives each month. But that exclusion list works both ways. If you stop working with a reseller or a licence expires, removing them from the exclusions means you will be alerted the moment your brand continues to appear on their platform. You can then take appropriate action before the situation escalates. Ryanair had to go to the High Court to address something that proactive monitoring could have flagged the day after the licence expired.

Summary

In Ryanair DAC v Skyscanner Ltd [2020] IEHC 399, the Irish High Court refused an interlocutory injunction sought by Ryanair to prevent Skyscanner from displaying its name and fares on its comparison platform. The court found Ryanair had only an arguable case on trademark infringement, given the referential use defence available under Article 14(1)(c) of the EU Trademark Regulation. The injunction was also effectively mandatory in nature, drawing a higher threshold, and the balance of convenience weighed against grant. For any brand owner whose name appears on third-party platforms, the case is a practical lesson in the limits of trademark law online and the importance of watertight licensing agreements and Terms of Use.

It is worth noting that the decision to apply for an interlocutory injunction, asking a court to act urgently before a full trial has even been listed, is a significant escalation. There is a well-documented pattern of larger organisations using urgent legal applications as a show of strength, on the basis that the commercial pressure and cost of responding will force the other side to back down regardless of the merits of the case.

I cannot comment on the legal strategies of large businesses, but for the majority of SMEs, receiving correspondence threatening urgent court proceedings can feel overwhelming, regardless of whether the claim has real substance. It is one of the reasons I started The Trademark Helpline. Whilst we cannot give legal advice and cannot represent you in court, we are able to provide research and guidance to help you understand your position and make a more informed decision. And if you do choose to respond or proceed, we can provide access to qualified trademark attorneys and solicitors around the globe, and can help keep your cost burden lower by providing their administrative support.

Have a trademark question? Start with a free search or book a 15-minute call.

Free Trademark Search | Book a free 15-minute call | 0161 833 5400