Neither of those coffees are brands. They're regions where the coffee is grown, and that is what makes people want them. I agree that they're both swindles to a certain extent.
In all honesty, Blue Mountain coffee is extremely rare to find by itself. Most of the time, coffee that is marketed as being "Blue Mountain" is mostly a blend of coffees from all over Jamaica with a little bit -or none at all- of Blue Mountain thrown in. I've been told that Kona is the same way.
You want to talk about brands that people are familiar with? Folgers, Maxwell House, Dunkan Donuts, and Starbucks. (Rated in order of fanciness! 
)
The meaning of "brand" is both what you've defined it to be, and in a broader sense it is also as Steve Contra had stated. Brand itself is fairly fluid (no pun intended). Ze Frank had a brilliant bit on this, but his old site isn't working right now. Here's a transcript, which lacks the timing and punch of the original video:
http://www.zefrank.com/thewiki/the_show:_08-29-06The entire summary of which can be stated, "A brand is an emotional aftertaste that's conjured up by, but not necessarily dependent on, a series of experiences."
Kona, itself, as a brand associated with coffee has tremendous value. This is why Hawai'i protects that brand with policies, or attempts to, as Lion Coffee's Kona Blend is pretty much the crappiest coffee around.
Champaign-as-a-brand has similar value, to the point where France briefly succeeded in getting other white sparkling wines to discontinue referring to themselves as "champaign." I'd always wondered what would happen if a sparkling white wine had been grown in Champaign, Illinois during that period. I mean, other than a rather poor wine being created.
