I don't give a fuck what the coin is called. It is what it is.
Your example about Apple points out one valid thing, brands can evolve. DarkCoin isn't even a brand, it's an unproven technology still at this point. I believe it will work as outlined by Evan, but that alone won't put it over the top. It won't be the fucking logo either.
The point here is, take a moment and google Zercoin. Look at the media they've gotten. Look at the keywords you see when you read the articles. Now a month or more ago, people donated to a "marketing" fund and there should be expectations of something happening other than your typical crapcoin "bounties". All supporters of the coin should ask, has anything really been done? Those guys have gotten attention either speaking to the media
There were discussions of some very essential and basic steps that could be taken to get the coin elevated to start to be noticed outside the world of BitCoinTalk. These means media outreach, speaking at crypto events, etc.
I see no new articles, no upcoming appearances or much in the way of discussions outside of this naming and branding stuff that is nothing more than going after the lowest hanging fruit. By this point, to be honest, there should be at least a handful of articles about DarkCoin on the front page.
Whatever, aside from Evan and Anonymint, reading this thread makes me want to sell.
Obviously, DarkSend must work. Everyone posting on this thread and invested in this coin is operating on that premise. Without DarkSend, this is just another coin.
However, the branding will probably prove important to at least some degree, unless DarkSend is completely unmatched in terms of its transactional anonymity (and probably even then). I think I am safe in assuming that no one has bothered with a crypto-media blitz because the main component of the technology is still in beta. Building hype (which is all it would be until DarkSend is ready) is useful, but difficult and time-consuming. Once the technology is ready, the process becomes much easier.
In terms of branding, the name is inherently a problem. If unaddressed it will, at best, not be a positive aspect of the enterprise; at worst, it might hamper wider adoption of the coin. We know that Dark is supposed to refer to privacy, but that is hierarchically lower on the semiotic chain than, say, 'evil' or 'illicit.' Thus, the logo must do the work of directing the uninformed user to the correct connotation.
In that respect, picking the black/white logo, #6, would be a mistake. It presents no useful information whatsoever, and is not unique in its choice of font. I would prefer a logo like #7 or #8, although I admit that I am disappointed by the execution, and probably will ultimately vote for #3.