It's actually not that complex. They're not misrepresenting themselves as the brands. They're not in the same industry as the brands. The standard is not "if anyone could think this was real".
I wouldn't be so sure. Jack Daniels sued (and won) against a maker of dog toys that looked like Jack Daniels but were named "Bad Spaniels". Turns out trademark law actually is complex.
Jack Daniels won because the maker of the dog toys were selling them, and wanted a trademark themselves.
Here we're talking about activists making non-commercial parody usage; the EFF's letter already mentions the Lanham Act, and let us add to that the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_Dilution_Revision_Ac...) which adds an express fair-use defense for noncommercial use.
there are behaviors that are avoided not simply because they're allowed or disallowed, but because they'll likely generate trouble regardless of the outcome.
poking at a corporation for the sake of legal infringement is still likely to require a lawyer in place to defend against the non-sense, even if it won't hold in court. There is a lot of stuff like this -- you generally don't poke sleeping bears even if you're sure they won't awaken.
