is @BPGlobalPR user name/trade name hijacking, protectible fair use, or both?

1. Dilution/Tarnishment:  Of the available causes of action, I would think BP would look to dilution/tarnishment, rather than garden variety infringement.  I say this because BPGlobalPR isn't selling any goods or services that are competitive with BP.  The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (covered by Prof. Goldman here) and the recent Victoria Secret case are two pieces of law worth checking out. 
   
   
2. Shirt Sales:  One area of dispute will be whether BPGlobalPR's use of BP's marks constitutes "use in commerce."  BPGlobalPR is selling shirts.  Brand owners going after commentary/parody uses often focus on this, although this type of commerce isn't a killer for the fair use defendant.  (See Citizen Media's Wal-Mart v. Smith page.) (I'm muddling various issues which deserve a much more nuanced look in points one and two, but you get the idea.)
   
   
3. Laches:  A laches argument in the trademark context is tough to make, but I wonder if a court will compress the time necessary to raise a colorable argument in this type of a factual context?  I don't think it's even close here, but given the rapid growth in BPGlobalPR's follower count, and the public attention that the account has received (including multiple reactions from BP spokespersons), if I were BP, I'd keep this in the back of my mind.
   
   
4. Cybersquatting:  Use of a mark in a Twitter account handle doesn't get you much as far as UDRP or the ACPA.  (See "No UDRP Relief for Post-Domain Use of Trademark.")
   
   
5. Claims Against Twitter:  Claims against Twitter by BP would be ill-advised.  (See "Tony La Russa's Legal Claims Against Twitter Look Tenuous.") 
   
   
6. Twitter's Designation of the Account as a Parody Account:  The most interesting aspect of the situation, and one I hadn't focused on before, is that Twitter has guidelines for registering and using Twitter accounts for parody, commentary, and fan purposes.  (See "Parody, Commentary, and Fan Accounts Policy.")  Twitter could do something interesting that could have an effect on how these situations play out from a legal standpoint.  It could add a designation to parody/commentary accounts that lets end users know that the account in question is not an "official account," and is one that exists for commentary, parody, or other fair use purposes.  I'm thinking of something similar to what Twitter does this with "Verified Accounts."  What would be the effect of this?  It could remove the factual issue of whether end users reasonably perceived the account as an official BP account, or at least significantly bolster BPGlobalPR's arguments that it was engaged in a use that is likely protected by the First Amendment.  (From what I've seen, this argument is pretty strong to begin with.)