You are totally correct, I agree, in strong ccTLD oriented countries, no matter if you start with new gTLD or .com as your main brand, it is always great to secure your brand in respective ccTLDs as well (no matter if you later use them as your main domain name for that country, or just as a redirect to you main domain name).
So what I was trying to demonstrate really (maybe little bit clumsily) is that if you are Danish company and start with ccTLD like unhappylove / dk, and want to expand your business later to, lets say, UK , and find out that you can not get unhappylove / co.uk from whatever reason (domain owner not contactable, price very high, already developed, etc), it is pretty difficult spot to be for a company (and when that happens in several coutries you want to expand, usually you need to rebrand then, or opt for some worse domains, like gounhappylove / co.uk. So many companies choose to rebrand in this spot, particularly in early stages). This can be avoided when you start with new gTLD from the very start, because in worst case, when unhappylove / co.uk is not available, you can use your main domain Uhhappy.Love for you UK customers and be done with it. Of course, someone can tell that you can use your .com name in UK as well (and in the case of UK that is 100% correct), but in many coutries in Europe, we just do not use .com names as primary choice - so it is then up for a discussion really what company will choose, if .com version of their brand, or new gTLD in this case.
Ideally, company should imo secure all 3 versions of their brand in domains, which is a) new gTLD (usually if their brand is 2 worder and last word is as well new gTLD extension), b) .com version of their brand and c) respective ccTLD versions of their brand, to be fully covered for future whatever their expansion plans are.