That's a really interesting question, and I might ping someone from CC to see if they'll provide their thoughts as well. I agree that the license itself would almost certainly need to be changed (especially since it doesn't mention trademark at all), but I imagine a similar license could be created.
The one question I have is if you even need that? There are a few arguments here. One is that some people will claim if you don't enforce the trademark, you'll lose it. But if you make it clear that the trademark is freely licenseable under certain terms, then I think you can protect against that.
I remember that, in the past (less so these days), Twitter employed an extremely permissive trademark regime, where they allowed others to use the term "tweet" or "twit" in their own offerings, leading to thinks like TwitPic and Tweetdeck -- both of which have often been confused as actually coming from Twitter (though, recently, Twitter did buy Tweetdeck). But on the flipside, I strongly believe that a part of Twitter's success was due to its permissive attitude on trademarks, which allowed others to make Twitter's brand much more valuable.
So the short term answer is that I don't have an answer directly... but it certainly is an interesting question, and I'm going to ping some CC folks to see what they think.