There are copyright claims for the use of the Apple logo pedestal, and the tiny iPhone sculpture. Apple owns these designs and can assert rights over their use and importation. They may not prevail if the makers can show some fair use defense, but that analysis is complex and all over the place. The amount of copying done, and commercial use of the images stacks against them.
Trademark is weird. The threshold matters are whether the use would be likely to cause 'consumer confusion', and if they brought a dilution cause of action, whether there was a "blurring or tarnishing" of the brand. The fact that Apple doesn't make figurines is relevant to the likelihood of confusion, but blurring and tarnishment require no proof of that.
There is also the matter of "secondary meaning." Although Steve retains his own right of publicity, which is a separate claim he can bring, a trademark claim can be brought for the use of his likeness because his image is so entwined with the business of Apple, and has achieved a "secondary meaning" that it identifies the source of a product.
Steve could also bring a Right of Publicity suit for the commercial use of his likeness, but I'm not really sure how/why apple would bring that claim. They could certainly file suit as joint parties against the statue makers.
Also -side note- I just saw the figurine. Shit, that is one amazing SJobs statue!!! Now I want one...