I am not a lawyer, and I'd welcome input from a real lawyer. But I am almost certain that satirical references to real brands are protected by fair use. I similarly suspect that licensing is not a legal requirement for movies.

I would be curious how you square your claim with Rogers v Grimaldi[0], or more directly, how you square it with the outcome of the very case we're commenting on.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

https://www.inta.org/TMR/Pages/vol99_no6_a2.aspx Pay attention to huge vulnerabilities like (6) the defendant’s intent in adopting the mark, wherein the defendant will have to show how a property was not used for a purpose, that the plaintiff will take issue with. Does anyone remember the Ford suit to stop news outlets from showing jihadists driving around in Ford pickups?

Rogers v Grimaldi is a narrow ruling in a district court about a celebrity name. It does not apply broadly to all branding and it's generally not worth a court battle to find out, since the filing is going to benefit the plaintiff.

That being said, there are consequences outside of pure legal issues to deal with in media production, which makes things like Apple's "allowance with their own restrictions" work. It's not a legal issue, but they can attack your post production just as well as making it a legal issue about filming.