Given the article doesn't shed any light on who is behind this enterprise/stunt/whatever, I'm curious why they used the term "Successful Troll".
The use of either word in their own right is curious as I don't see what here constitutes this to be particularlly "successful" or how Dumb Starbuck's assertion of "fair use" motivation equates to "trolling"
Did you read the article? They say explicitly that they are using the Starbucks name and logo for "marketing purposes", and that they don't even think Starbucks is dumb.
Saying something you don't even believe just to get a reaction is classic trolling. And it's "successful trolling" because they definitely got a reaction.
They don't even assert a fair-use motivation. Their motivation is marketing a business; they explicitly admit that the fair-use stuff is a fig leaf.
The use of either word in their own right is curious as I don't see what here constitutes this to be particularlly "successful" or how Dumb Starbuck's assertion of "fair use" motivation equates to "trolling"