In terms of reducing the risk that users would mistakenly use a site where a third party was intentionally looking to pass themselves off as the particular variant of Monster, it is a good argument. When a consumer is aware that the only legitimate Monster sites are those with the .monster suffix, this would reduce the risk of them using fraudulent sites.
If on the other hand a user looking to find the jobs variant stumbling upon .monster domains controlled by the energy variant, there is no risk of user confusion in this regard.
In summary, the confusion they allude to is third parties using the mark or a variant thereof in a deliberate attempt to mislead, as opposed to confusion between established brands.
Comments
In terms of reducing the risk that users would mistakenly use a site where a third party was intentionally looking to pass themselves off as the particular variant of Monster, it is a good argument. When a consumer is aware that the only legitimate Monster sites are those with the .monster suffix, this would reduce the risk of them using fraudulent sites.
If on the other hand a user looking to find the jobs variant stumbling upon .monster domains controlled by the energy variant, there is no risk of user confusion in this regard.
In summary, the confusion they allude to is third parties using the mark or a variant thereof in a deliberate attempt to mislead, as opposed to confusion between established brands.