It is not clear if you just see "fbpurity.com" that this is parody, so it would be difficult to make that claim for the ___domain name, which kind of needs to stand alone as it is rendered alone. I do agree, however, that this person is unlikely to fall into trademark straights on this name (I maintain it was just thrown into the list of complaints to make them longer and more imposing, which would then lead to longer trials and larger legal fees arguing if it ever came to that). The argument, however, was out of place.
Do you know of cases where tarde marks that were considered parody were still ruled as illegal in the end?