NVK clearly indicates the trademark he is protecting is for "blockclock" by boosting the following post.

nostr:nevent1qqswwmne35jhxy8nz930xyeks00nua4lesd6lxcecw50ueewkw0pz9gpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43z7q3qrvqzg0lsgsnnmrjxelt44vml99gul28mverm80ht4wad5cjmdesqxpqqqqqqzp6fk3v

NVK implies he is using his trademark claim to protect his sales of his luxury-priced BLOCKCLOCK. This does not appear to be a valid a trademark or copyright claim. 

nostr:nevent1qqswl8cft39yyg49wn9yvkj953x2cz568r4vu8mhfjuru4pyyevs0wgpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7q3qaz9xj85cmxv8e9j9y80lvqp97crsqdu2fpu3srwthd99qfu9qsgsxpqqqqqqzftp2fp

nostr:nevent1qqs079xdzd9ga5r8ntc6fr845dv7qyqygnrwzz4xx44my5vyy2ehtdcpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsyg8g3f53axxenp7fv3fpmlmqqf0kquqr0zjg0yvqmjamffgz0pgyzypsgqqqqqqskazk3s

This can be publically resolved with the  simple gesture of publishing the actual takedown request sent to github. If NVK holds a trademark for BTCclock, then he has a positive legal right established in law by means of the monopoly of the use of force and people with guns and cages. If NVK only holds a trademark for BLOCKCLOCK, and he does not publish the takedown request, then we can assume he is standing behind the 5th amendment.