Coverage is only partial.

[MrJoy]

While Kik's motivation for acting was the perceived need to protect their trademark (they were misguided here, but believed they had to), checking for trademarks alone will not protect any package author.

Basically, the NPM dispute resolution policy shows that they are willing to transfer ownership arbitrarily if they think it is prudent to do so. Note that:

1. Example Coverage is only partial. #3 does not state that Foo Inc has a trademark on the term foo -- and in fact trademarks aren't mentioned at all.
2. According to their own Medium post, Kik never actually provided any proof of having a trademark to NPM
3. There's no specificity around jurisdiction in that document (although others imply that California law may be the frame of reference they operate under)
4. Their own trademark policy suggests they've been well-advised on US trademark law, and would have known that Kik was being overzealous, but they chose to remove Azer's ownership of the name anyway -- which strongly supports the idea that they are willing to reassign ownership of a name even in absence of a compelling legal reason

[parro-it]

This tool is not meant to protect us for any possible incident...

It just check if you own any repo with a name trademarked in US.

[MrJoy]

The name of the tool is confusing then, as trademarks were only tangentially relevant to the Kik issue.