Shockingly enough your link there points to a ‘reverse confusion’ argument, wherein you are correct in that the more similar marks that could easily be confused with the owners mark leads to a weakening of the mark. In this case few of the 10 factors laid out in the decision are met:

“(1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark”
the pairing and order of the words in the two phrases ‘the other white meat’ and ‘the new white meat’ are fairly similar; which could lead to confusion.

“(2) the strength of the two marks, weighing both a commercially strong junior user’s mark and a conceptually strong senior user’s mark in the senior user’s favor”
First the PB’s mark is very strong, however the other is for a non-existent product and would have a very very weak mark.

“(3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase”
As ‘Unicorn Meat’ does not exist and does not have any true price point or place of purchase this point is moot.

“(4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising”
Since ‘the new white meat’ has been introduced and is for a product that does not exist there has been no actual confusion.

“(5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark”
The intent here is for satire and to cause a laugh, not to make a profit on a non-existent product.

“(6) the evidence of actual confusion”
No evidence of actual confusion exists here.

“(7) whether the goods, competing or not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media”
The defendant’s goods do not exist and not actively marketed.

“(8) the extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same”
A non-existent product does not have any true sales efforts.

“(9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of consumers, whether because of the near-identity of the products, the similarity of function, or other factors”
I’m not sure how consumers could be confused by ‘pork’ and ‘unicorn’ meat.

“(10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the larger, more powerful company to manufacture both products, or expect the larger company to manufacture a product in the plaintiff’s market, or expect that the larger company is likely to expand into the plaintiff’s market.”
Again unicorn meat does not exist and there is no market for it.

Therefore the FREEDOM CARD v. CHASE FREEDOM case could not be used in a supportive action as previous case law in support of the PB’s action. Nice try though.