This thread already does call them that though.
Also, at least in the US, you are not required to register with a state or federal agency to be granted trade mark protection as there are both Unregistered trade marks (basically all they have to do is slap a TM next to it) and common law trade marks...and additionally there's the Lanham Act which offers other rights. They don't need to because they can just test it in court afterwards and damage awards are high.
Anyway, back to the question of copyright, this section is from Blizzard's Starcraft 2 EULA. Emphasis is mine:
The copyright issue is actually easier to get by on as it isn't a direct copy of the artwork but honestly it's similar enough to be past the grey area.
At the point that anyone makes money on the product (as Signature Plastics would be by producing keys), there's no chance of "fair use" protection either.
First: I am not a lawyer. Let's make that clear. This is based on my interpretations of how this stuff works.
The Trademark stuff is irrelevant: It only really applies to companies encroaching on a particular trade. For example, if I want to make a pizza place called "Pizza Hut" I can't 'cause it's Trademarked, but there's no reason why I can't make a laundromat called "Pizza hut". Since it's demonstratively in a different trade. There's no way I can encroach on that. For reference, look at Apple computers vs. Apple records. Both have the same (or really similar) names, but there's no encroaching on trademarks. Since it's pretty easy to spot (and happens frequently) court cases involving this are abundant (Like if I start a software company called "Dynamic Convergence" not knowing one already exists, I'll get sued by the real one for infringing on their trademark)
The real issue here is copyright. Now, Blizzard's blanket claims of copyrighting everything are somewhat valid: If I write a poem, and don't attach any notice to it, it's still copyrighted to me (in the US). Anything new/creative I output I can also claim copyright to. Anything blizzard comes up with, they claim copyrights on. Hence the really broad statements.
But they can't copyrighted something that's already been come up with. For example, if I want to copyright a shamrock symbol used in playing cards as "clubs" I can't. It already exists. If I come up with a set of playing cards, and include that, but say I copyright all the images, It may look like I claim to copyright the clubs symbol, but in reality I can't. This is similar to the "prior artwork" in patent law (and how I can't patent a post-and-lintel door structure, since it's been around for 5000 years)
So, since blizzard's images are distinctly different than Hazeluff's, I don't see the issue. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, Hazeluff holds the copyright to them (if applicable), as they are based on blizzard's work, but not copying it (distinctly different). Take for example ,the Parody exclusion: If I write a parody, it's clearly based on their work, but my own creation. Also, all of Handel's music is out of copyright, but if I play it, I can copyright the performance of it. It may sound really similar to another performance of it, but not infringe on their separate copyright (or the fart the the actual music is in the public domain.)
Finally, a lot of those images look based on and really similar to military rank insignias. I am pretty sure those are public-domain anyway, as most work produced through a government (the SElinux security, for example) is automatically in the public domain. That means that the ones based on chevrons should be good regardless.
In a really direct example, I can repaint a painting, claim it as my work (with regard and respect to the original) and still sell it.
NOW: Printing an exact copy of blizzard's- work (is impossible, but even if it weren't) would likely be a violation, but an original, similar, but distinct representation of it... I'd say we're good.