The community debated the specificity of name=* ad nauseam a couple years ago. At the time, a mapper sought unsuccessfully to establish a global norm that chargers, restaurants, and anything else should have a name=* unique to the system it belongs to. Some other mappers feel name=* should be omitted unless it’s distinct from any other tag on the feature – another example of tagging minimalism that creates problems in other respects. Ultimately, OSM ends up with a pragmatic, nuanced compromise between these positions.
My perspective on this is limited, since I’m not an electric vehicle owner and don’t have experience with this kind of infrastructure. What I’ve noticed is that EV charging stations fall into an uncanny valley among points of interest: sort of street furniture, sort of a destination in its own right, depending on how you look at it. That affects expectations about whether it should have a name=* based on brand=*.
Fixtures like fire hydrants, public telephones, information kiosks, and ATMs are generally unnamed with rare exceptions. Data consumers have struggled with whether to label ATMs based on other keys besides name=*. I could see an argument for omitting name=* from an unremarkable charging station in a parking lot, particularly a private one for customers or employees. But many of the ones we’re mapping are intended to be destinations. In rural areas, they’re even signposted at freeway exits just like gas stations and other motorist amenities.
The U.S. has a very strong convention to always include name=* on a gas station. Most chain gas stations will have a name=* that matches the brand=* of either the station itself or the attached store. Any deviation from this practice would need to be well-justified, for example if the gas station is a landmark and its signs promote a unique location name unusually prominently. The point of this naming convention is for each name=* tag to be consistent with end user expectations. To the extent that the names follow a predictable formula, it’s only because of real world expectations and usage, not for the purpose of database consistency.
Either way, I see no reason to follow a name=[City] [Brand] naming formula unless the brand is adamant that this is how you’re supposed to call each charger. The format in a store locator listing isn’t particularly strong evidence of that. Confusingly, “San Jose Supercharger” all but tells the consumer that it’s the Supercharger in San José. Yet there are enough in the city and others like it that this couldn’t possibly be a useful naming scheme either in the real world or in OSM. name=[Brand] seems like the more likely naming scheme, since it potentially distinguishes the charging station from others very close by that are part of other systems.