I checked out the link you posted and didn't see anything there that really disproved ggunn's point. Most of what is discussed on that web pages is about trademark infringment that may "cause consumer confusion" and "for commercial purposes" which ggunn clearly said he was not defending.
If anything, your website backs up his position where it says:
Finally, certain parodies of trademarks may be permissible if they are not too directly tied to commercial use. The basic idea here is that artistic and editorial parodies of trademarks serve a valuable critical function, and that this critical function is entitled to some degree of First Amendment protection. The courts have adopted different ways of incorporating such First Amendment interests into the analysis... Still other courts have held that the First Amendment effectively trumps trademark law, under certain circumstances. In general, however, the courts appear to be more sympathetic to the extent that parodies are less commercial, and less sympathetic to the extent that parodies involve commercial use of the mark.