It is my opinion that Prof. Mueller tends to tell us what he wants the law to be, not what the law is. I think that the relevance of this discussion is that it gives domain name holders the opportunity to ponder what would be the implication of what would happen if the law was what Prof. Mueller wanted it to be. There's never been an argument about this. Neither you nor I nor the owner of the domain name knows that yet. You cannot disclaim infringement.
Cases often hold that disclaimers aggravate infringment.
In this case the link to Microsoft's site implies awareness and endorsement by Microsoft. By the way, whether they make money or not is relevant to damages, not to whether the use is infringing or not. I understand your defense of this activity to be that the damage to Microsoft is de minimis. Maybe Microsoft thinks it is de minimis. Maybe what is de minimis to Microsoft is not de minimis to other people.