Editorial License Clarification

You will get refund if you buy ripped model and ask for a refund. But it is kind of sad when buyers have to be careful and double check if they are buying stolen model or not. Especially game makers are very vulnerable here due to slim budget and biggest public exposure of their final products.
Maybe CGT could implement a "not stolen" filter in the search (joooke, ehm).

Just to be clear, selling triangulated models is absolutely valid and correct way for game models.
But if is it combined with other warning signals you should be careful.

Sellers does not care how you are going to use their models. They put it under Editorial license because they are responsible or forced by the shop itself (not a case here). It's just a way how to transfer copyright responsibility from seller to buyer.
Editorial license here says you are responsible for obtaining permissions from IP/copyright holder. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to use it in a commercial way if you remove/change all the copyrighted design from it. But with copyrighted characters this could be almost impossible, for example if someone sells a Batman model copied from the movie, all parts of his armor/body are unique IP design . If the character has normal human hand, then yes you can use the hand in a commercial product, but you can't if it is a gauntlet with gems in it.

With your tire example removing just the logo may not be enough. Because tire treads are also unique design and if the author copied them from the real GoodYear tire you had to change them also.

Also I would be very careful with buying any copyrighted characters, especially from comic/movies under any license . It's the most pirated stuff.
Stay away if:
-the model is unreasonably cheap
-the model doesn't show you mesh/wire images,
-the mesh is triangulated
-author sells only this type of models
-quality of his other models is not consistent
-description is vague

If you bought something like this, it is almost certain it's a ripped/stolen. For example I just searched for Deadpool and yeah at least few of them are obviously stolen models, sold under royalty license.

The work needs to be altered totally unrecognizable in order to be considered new work, there are some exceptions with so called derivative works and the fair use doctrine but its a gray area and fair use probably not apply to your case, more info on this here (https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law)

In principal your not allowed to alter the work and call it new original and use it as such.
Royalty free license would be a safer way to go as you would have purchased some legal limited rights to use the work.