Can I say that with authority? Of course not. I can't say the window wouldn't be broken had you not thrown a baseball at it, either. But I can tell you the window is broken because you threw a baseball at it.
Chastising the author for breaking it in the first place is neither here nor there.
The reasoning was provided in the included email screenshot. It's not a grand leap to suggest that not repeating the precise reasoning for the extension's removal would likely mitigate future action. The OP fundamentally resubmitted the app without addressing the complaint. How to fix a trademark transgression seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?
I didn't get the clear reasons my extension was taken down. It is a grand leap to what needs to be changed in order for the app to be compliant and in the same time not confusing existing users.
The fact that Safari allows it is not some broad-sweeping legal pronouncement. Nor is it proof that they even truly evaluated it more than superficially. It's not even validation that the extension is compliant via Apple's terms. It just means your extension got back in.
Apple could get a takedown notice tomorrow and do the exact same thing. This is clearly a risk of using the Facebook trademark, even if you're doing it in a "fair use" way.
I'm not trying to be rude here, so please don't read it this way. But bluntly, invoking Facebook's name in your extension is kicking the hornet's nest. If Facebook doesn't like it, they will send takedown notices and Apple and Google will assuredly respond to those by suspending extensions. Your beef is still ultimately with Facebook, not Google.