These don't fall under section 10 though - 7A through F detail the terms that are explicitly exempt from the restriction on adding additional terms.
Other people have argued that these are contradictory - but you don't need trademark rights to display a logo if the purpose of the display is to directly refer to the trademarked material. They are likely hoping for something along the lines of "powered by ". For example, Coca Cola logos and trademarks have appeared in TONS of Pepsi marketing materials, because those trademarks were used to directly refer to the coca cola brand, which is fair use.
I think what it comes down to is whether the courts see "displaying the logo" as "reasonable" attribution or not.

It's a pretty solid "good" or "good+" on the scale of bad-meh-ok-good-great-amazing
Worse than e.g. The Studio, Ted Lasso, better than most of the 1 season forgettable comedies