Hey man, keep the name - it was done in your honor (sarcastic and mocking, sure 
), not as an attempt to take it. It’s yours, not mine.
I can see how people are annoyed with the name “Black IPA,” and it used to bother me, too. But after I got used to it, I just thought, “does beer need a serious name?” And I realized that a cheeky, silly name that effectively explains what the beer is all about is better than a name that confuses everyone who isn’t intimately familiar with Washington and Oregon. I wouldn’t mind that the beer may have been invented in Vermont or Canada, really, but “Cascadian” is a ridiculous word that sounds made-up and I feel silly using that word at a bar here in Northern California, let alone in London or Sydney.
I also don’t think a BJCP style name needs to be created for Black IPA, and I think several of the more esoteric styles should be removed. But if I were reworking the guidelines, I would remove several styles and create a couple more “Specialty” styles so that we don’t have a Black IPA getting judged against Gose. Something like “Specialty IPA” or “American Specialty Ale,” or even “Specialty Strong Ale” could group together all the double red ales, Black IPA’s, India Brown Ales, RyeI PA’s and whatnot. Then a “Specialty Sour” or “Other Mixed Fermentation” style could get all the American-style sours and Goses and whatnot.
Anyway, I did a blog post about the changes I would make to the BJCP guidelines recently. So if you’re interested, here it is: http://brewinginlawschool.blogspot.com/2012/04/problems-with-bjcp-guidelines.html