I think this is a great question - I'll paraphrase my interpretation: "What does enforcement look like when a big name / known trademark is registered?" - I'll answer the question again in a different way. Will return to this.

----

But first - would like to +1 troquerre's answer - the DNSSEC proofs provide some degree of long-term primacy and compatibility/transferability to Handshake - it'll help minimize conflicts/disputes.

Adding to that answer: I think something often left unsaid is how Handshake is attempting to create incentives for everyone (not just the early devs) to work together and make the internet better. The wide distribution to FOSS developers and donations have been mentioned by the team in other replies, but I'd like to add more:

From the design notes:
(source: https://handshake.org/files/handshake.txt)

```
ICANN has been the root namespace for the internet. ICANN (CA, US) is allocated
24,480,000 of the initial coin supply by the Handshake community.

Cloudflare, Inc. (DE, US) is a corporation doing fundamental research for
naming, caching, and certificate authorities. They are allocated 6,800,000 of the
initial token supply.

Namecoin is a decentralized naming blockchain. 10,200,000 of the initial supply
was allocated to leading current and prior Namecoin developers.

Verisign, Inc. (VA, US) is the registrar for .com and .net. They are allocated
6,800,000 of the initial token supply. The .com and .net TLDs on Handshake will
be given to Verisign with a DNSSEC proof.

Keybase has been innovating in the naming and certificate authority space.
Keybase, Inc. (DE, US) are allocated 0.25% of the total token supply.

Public Internet Registry (VA, US) maintains the .org namespace. They are
allocated 3,400,000 of the initial token supply. The .org TLD on Handshake will
be given to PIR with a DNSSEC proof to pir.org.

Afilias plc (IE) has been the service provider for the .org namespace. They were
allocated 3,400,000 of the initial supply to a DNSSEC proof of afilias.info.
Note for both PIR and Afilias, this allocation was made before the proposed
sale of the .org namespace.
```

These aren't trivial amounts for typical "ICO project marketing buzz / fake partnerships", they add up to percentages of total supply claimable by DNSSEC proof.

Because of this attempt to align incentives, I imagine there could be a world where community members (FOSS developers and wider mainstream 'internet' folks, not just 'crypto' folks) can get the best of both worlds, where any conflicts between ICANN and Handshake are minimized or the user pain mitigated by resolvers/other service providers.

----

*returning to the original question on cocacola -- the dnssec proof setup helps with .com domains where the holder wants to claim and use the Handshake tld there are a lot of situations where this is not enough.

What if someone registers cocacolacompany, or thecocacolacompany, or coke? It could totally happen:

Source: https://github.com/kyokan/namegrind
```
cocacolacompany,4032,2,false
thecocacolacompany,22176,20,false
coke,50400,48,false
```
Note:
- that output is ${name},${blocknumber},${weeknumber},${reserved}
- it can be generated with this tool
https://github.com/kyokan/namegrind

If one puts together the pieces from some of the other posts from the team - someone can claim anonymously with GooSig and buy the above names, and the multinational that is "The Coca-Cola Company" will probably attempt to find and enforce trademark protections against the holder -- if they cannot find that person, and it is flagged as an infringing name -- resolvers or some other downstream service providers may have to block it. Of course, I am not condoning this - talk to your lawyer before you knowingly attempt to buy a name -- just pointing out that it is possible. From there, we could extrapolate various ways the legal system gets involved, or "pretty complicated governance models" attempt to protect The Company's claims, or the holder's privacy/control.

So, to answer your question: Handshake is definitely less centralized than existing systems (no entity to send a takedown request to), but it's also not clear if strictly incompatible with laws in most jurisdictions.

I don't think anything of this kind has been done before - my intent is to provide a bit of context and spark further discussion, but I'm not qualified to do more than speculate on how the legal stuff may play out.

That said, for some jurisdictions, "B)" may very well happen.