in the case being remanded to the district court for another hearing. The circuit court held that the lower court had interpreted the WhenU precedent incorrectly, because Google's process of selling keywords for its AdWorks service was a different type of business practice. The court rejected Google's argument that the inclusion of a trademarked term in an internal computer directory does not constitute "use" of that trademark under the Lanham Act. Instead, the court held that "Google’s recommendation and sale of Rescuecom’s mark to its advertising customers are not internal uses" and were a full business transaction. If the court were to accept Google's argument, "the operators of search engines would be free to use trademarks in ways designed to deceive and cause consumer confusion. This is surely neither within the intention nor the letter of the Lanham Act." In another departure from the matters discussed in the WhenU precedent, the circuit court accepted Rescuecom's assertion that Google's placement of "sponsored links" purchased by its AdWords customers, above organic search results at the google.com page, could lead consumers to conclude that such ads were associated with Rescuecom. As a result, Google's argument that a sponsored link is analogous to placement of a generic brand next to a trademarked brand was rejected by the circuit court. The Second Circuit thus vacated the district court decision, ruling that Google's actions constituted commercial use and that Rescuecom's claims of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and related claims could not be immediately dismissed as Google requested. The case was sent back to the district court for reconsideration of possible financial damages to be paid to Rescuecom. Impact and subsequent developments In 2010, Rescuecom moved to drop the proceedings against Google and issued a press release declaring victory in the case. However, Google apparently made no new concessions to Rescuecom to get it to drop the lawsuit; instead, the changes that Rescuecom claimed as victory had been made by Google five years earlier. Thus it was unclear if Google had adjusted its AdWords recommendation process based on the circuit court ruling, or if Rescuecom had realized any rewards. Meanwhile, the original district court ruling was criticized for confusing the matter of "commercial use" of trademarked terms on the Internet for advertising practices that would be permitted for traditional advertising, though the Second Circuit ruling on appeal has been cited as an important if uncertain precedent in