Most Protestant churches actually invoke the Trinitarian formula at the time of baptism. As the minister prepares to dunk the candidate, he will actually say something like, "John Doe, I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit," and then will immediately immerse the baptismal candidate. The JW teaching is that the words were intended, not as a spoken formula, but to show that baptisms should be carried out in the name (= the authority) of the Father, Jehovah, His Son, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Why an active force should have authority is still unclear, but, of course, in covering the baptismal questions, the WTS has usurped the place of the Holy Spirit, replacing it with the "spirit-directed organization." And there's no question among the JW's as to the authority of that!
I don't know that I disagree with the JW's about "name" actually meaning "authority." I'm not sure that a spoken formula is necessary, though I don't see anything wrong with using one, either. But I do believe that Christian baptism should be carried out under the authority of all three members of the Godhead. (Which presents a likely possibility as to why the JW's are so eager to equate "name" with "authority" - it spares them from having to explain why the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have only one name. After all, it doesn't say, "in the names of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.")