All of the high-profile orgs I am aware of who once called their licensing "Apache + Commons Clause" have since changed the names of their licenses to something else.

The argument that "Apache + Commons Clause" is a "combination" is straightforward to counter. The "Commons Clause" is not additive — it fundamentally changes the license, making it more restrictive and taking away potential uses. Consumers could not count on being able to do the things with software under such a license that they would ordinarily expect to be able to do with "Apache" licensed software, which damages the "Apache" brand.

In any case, it's not clear that it's worthwhile to go up against a sympathetic defendant like the ASF and make such an argument for limited benefit.