GoldieBox is a toy company right? so they are doing that ad for profit, i dont think the BB will lose their case. It's not fair use if it is commercial.
Imagine a TV advert for cosmetics or apparel that used 'Pretty woman' (even in parodic form or heavily transformed): this is a very different kind of commercial application. In your example the parodist is selling a new version of the song; in the example above a new version of the song is being used to sell something else. This is a classic example of where licensing is appropriate because any resulting commercial transactions will not be made by an audience on aesthetic grounds of preference for the new song, but by customers who wish to purchase a girl-themed construction toy.
I think your/the EFF's legal theory here is DOA and will be extremely surprised if GoldieBlox succeeds.
I do agree that the harm that would be suffered by the band/publisher is negligible, but 'they can afford it' is a weak rationale; the band/label are in a much stronger position on this prong because they've consistently refused to license their work for commercial purposes, so they can argue that this represents brand dilution rather than the relatively paltry cost of a temporary license, leaving the door open for a finding of more significant economic damages. Now if they counter sue Goldie Blocks the court might not look too favorably on it, but as it is GB's suit IMHO amounts to little more than a temper tantrum about the company's inability to get what it wants. Of course, the firm may consider the publicity value to be greater than the legal costs.