Should (or will) Bitcoin Cash rebrand?

No.

Resilient defiance is only demonstrable in the face of significant adversity.

Although many outsiders or less informed market participants may believe Bitcoin Cash has one of the worst crypto brands - "Knock off Bitcoin", in reality it has the best possible crypto brand - "Uncorruptible Bitcoin". This branding is impossible to fake or replicate, and BCH has been through unmatched pain to earn it. Educating consumers on this brand is certainly an ongoing challenge, but consumer education would be required for any alternative brand the same way.

Due to the conflict with the Bitcoin BTC branding and therefore frequent confusion and the need to perpetually explain the difference and history to new users, it is a common suggestion that Bitcoin Cash (BCH) as the smaller coin should rebrand. Example 1.

The community will correctly never do this, for a number of reasons:

The real Bitcoin: The BCH community came into existence to protect the original mission of Bitcoin in Satoshi's whitepaper, a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. This is the founding ideal of the community, and an ideologically-driven position they will not compromise on under any circumstances. This level of committment is a key strength of the community. Similar to the way North and South Korea both claim to be "the one true" Korea, both do not recognise each other's claim and will fight to their dying breath over that principle, Bitcoin BTC and Bitcoin Cash BCH are in the same all-or-nothing struggle. History has not decided who is "the real Bitcoin" until one side surrenders the claim or is totally eliminated, and the Bitcoin Cash community will not surrender, ever. This claim is validated by 5+ years of suffering constant derision due to the minority branding, minority hash rate and disapproval by price speculators. The BTC side claim the same conviction, but have no proof the faith of their community could survive even a single day (let alone years on end) without the unearned (from a BCH perspective) default legitimacy and market value of the Bitcoin brand name. There is every possibility that when BCH reclaims majority hashrate, price, and decentralised approval from the marketplace as the real Bitcoin that the demoralised BTC community (who would have to pick a new name and identity, perhaps "Bitcoin Core") will splinter into pieces and be gone forever.
Proven resilience: The original pre-split Bitcoin community grew in size and strength from a tiny group because its own vision and committment to the project was so overwhelming that it ignored and swept past endless amounts of doubt, criticism, ridicule and marginalisation. Instead, the Bitcoin community refused to bend or be ignored and carried on its mission. Nothing is more convincing of a project's strength to outside observers than demonstrating this singleminded focus through years of persistence. The BCH community is even more famous for this obstinancy than the pre-split Bitcoin community, and it must maintain this image to be a credible replacement for BTC and candidate to be used by the entire world. A Bitcoin that cannot be swayed or manipulated by disinformation or doubt is priceless, demonstrating uncorruptibility, political neutrality and focus on the mission is the only way to be adopted by everyone in the world. This approach is an example of an Intolerant Minority strategy.
Consumer education: Confusion over the BTC and BCH brand is a burden of user education, which is overwhelmingly shouldered by BCH as the minority community. This contains a subtle but powerful advantage, consumers cannot choose BCH from ignorance. Many speculators or misinformed market participants may choose BTC by default without understanding the history or trade-offs against BCH (either unaware of it, or misinformed that it is a "scam"), but the reverse is not true. Education is a one-way process and the more someone learns about Bitcoin the more likely they convert to BCH. In aggregate, this means the BCH community is far more educated on cryptocurrency generally, far more dedicated to the community vision, and far more resilient in a time of crisis. Former BTC supporters are common in the BCH community (and they make for some of its best advocates, informed by their own experience) but the reverse is vanishingly rare or unheard of (i.e. virtually no one converts from BCH to BTC). Over time, this one-way flow of converts is a key advantage for BCH.
Consumer trust: Being associated with the Bitcoin branding can be confusing, but it has a silver lining. Consumers trust the Bitcoin brand as it is most familiar, and even if it is confusing they will still trust something linked to Bitcoin after some explanation far faster than they will develop that trust for any of the other 10 000+ unrelated cryptocurrency brands.
Historic reminder: The current branding contains within it a perpetual reminder of the lesson for all BCH adopters to be aware of censorship and misinformation attacks. Universal community awareness of this history is the best defence against a similar attack working again in the future. Verify, don't trust.
Existing network effect: Changing might prevent conflict with BTC, but it also destroys several years of work establishing the current BCH brand and there is no evidence that would be a worthwhile trade.
BTC salt: Calls for BCH to rebrand frequently come from the BTC community themselves. This is an indication they feel threatened and insecure about their ability to win the war for Bitcoin against BCH, as they rarely make the same overtures to the far smaller Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin Gold, or other Bitcoin fork communities.

For an alternative compelling perspective against rebranding, check out this article by Pantera.

Note that BCH and BTC have been split long enough now that some Bitcoin adopters in BCH focussed areas had their first (or the majority) of their exposure to Bitcoin as BCH and so for them "orange Bitcoin BTC" is the unfamiliar, knock-off one and "green Bitcoin BCH" is the real Bitcoin by default.

The current branding strikes a nice balance between its connection to Bitcoin (use of the Bitcoin B in a circle) and contrast with BTC (green vs orange, tilted up instead of down). BCH tends to stand out in the thousands of coins because most coins are red, blue, orange, yellow or black - very few are green, and only BTC, BCH and BSV use the Bitcoin B.

The foolishness of rebranding has already been clearly demonstrated. eCash (XEC), forked away from BCH because they wanted to change track on a number of decisions. One of these was rebranding, and subsequently their community has begun presenting fraudulently doctored images of the original Bitcoin whitepaper with a new title and website link to try and scrape back some of the credibility they lost by changing direction. Once this standard of spreading misinformation sets into a community (as also seen with Bitcoin BTC censoring discussion about blocksize increases), it becomes more and more prevalent.

Original source