when creating brands you have to be soooooo careful. getting it wrong or missing something can mean very embarassing and public unpicking of a mess. sometimes the subject matter is enough to set you up for a fall and generally anything that is paid for by the central or local government will be scutinised to hell (2012 anyone?).
i recently saw this logo for ProCapita. I won't comment on the use of drop shadows, but i really can't have escaped anyone's notice along that the initials for ProCapita are PC and the logo shows CP. Why push ahead with a logo that is so bad they had to ignore the actual company name to make it work?
Here is another example of government funded logo that has been hit with critiscm. the logo as it stands is fine. not ground breaking, not offensively fashionable. what's the big deal? well at the point that the marketing and design teams started applying it to various objects people began to notice that when it's viewed from another angle it gives another impression all togther...
Now please don't jump on my back. This is not just my childish humour. The Times has run an article pointing out how much it looks like a masturbating stick man.
Like it said you have to be very careful when creating brands. Not just the quality, not just checking for any similarities to other logos, names or brands but it seems it's really important to look at the new marque from every angle and in every context.