For-profit use is one factor considered, but it should be the most important one. This isn’t criticism, or analysis; this isn’t parody. It isn’t educational. It’s conflating two trademarks so that people who own neither can profit. And again, if that isn’t copyright violation, I don’t know what is.
If Gerrold and Templeton put this up for funsies, or to raise money for a charity, fine. They didn’t. They did it for profit, and deserve their gall to have ramifications.
