If this is true, the detail that sticks out to me is that before the legal filings StreamLabs thought to reach out about using the name. If StreamLabs thought the names were similar enough that they reached out about using the name, that proves that even from their own former perspective, they're using a mark that was already recognized in the industry and similar enough to their own mark - surely consumers could have the same perspective (many in the comments here were already confused). They also can't claim ignorance. Why should they expect trademark law to now protect the name for them?

The same thing apparently happened with Meta: http://meta.company/.