That is, if it's actually a DMCA claim and if that DMCA claim is patently invalid (trademarks are not covered by copyright, so filing a DMCA claim on trademark grounds would be obviously invalid).
Most of the time the things people call "DMCAs" aren't actual DMCA takedown requests, though. For example YouTube blocks a lot of content based on automated flagging which doesn't even invoke the DMCA -- illegitimate flagging isn't illegal, it's often not even a violation of the ToS, even if it causes lost revenue.
While I certainly agree that abusing DMCA notices is a bad thing, I have only ever seen a few really egregious filings get punished and even that was marginal. I'm honestly surprised that there hasn't been more pushback. I've seen some pretty idiotic filings...
So using a DMCA takedown request because of a trademark infringement if there isn't also a copyright infringement would be perjury because you're making a bogus claim. AFAICT this would only matter if both sides ended up pursuing legal action (i.e. the DMCA counter-claim is resisted).
The only example of DMCA abuse being punished I've seen so far is the infamous YouTube drama between thunderf00t and VenomFangX (who ended up reading a prepared statement as part of an out-of-court settlement with tf00t to avoid facing legal consequences).
I think most people aren't willing to actually sue DMCA trolls or are unsure about their actual legal position. It's certainly understandable why a company like Google might be more likely to just follow the rules instead of taking a stand as long as they're not affected directly. And tools like YouTube's automated content claims completely circumvent the need for "content owners" to invoke DMCA and risk legal consequences.
