Catholicism. Islam. Buddhism. Jehovah's Witnessism?
I find it odd that Rutherford specifically set out to identify the religion by a specific name: Jehovah's Witnesses, but the official group was never given a proper name. So you have a way to refer to the members but not the organization. Thus members of the group develop their own loaded language: The society teaches...the organization suggests...the Slave directs that...but neutral observers cannot speak of the religion without either adopting the religion's loaded language or using buzzwords that set off "apostate" alarms in the mind of JWs, such as referring to the group as The Watchtower.
Thoughts on why this is?
I think it may have something to do with Rutherford's view at the time that organized religion was bad (religion is a snare and a racket). He viewed his group as being a collection of true Christians, not an organized religion, so why would you want to officially identify the institution? It would seem contradictory to what he was teaching.
This is simply conjecture on my part, though. I've not seen any hard evidence that would confirm this suspicion.