I agree with in @nokoa77 that it may be wise to select a more "broad" name. As simple yet descriptive as possible.
Many points about naming were discussed when the same question was asked about Joplin Server.
I feel that it needs to contain the word "Joplin" to tie it in with the Joplin ecosystem. Also it needs to be something that does not generate many search false positives. So whilst ideas such as "Joplin Syncopation" are quite interesting (this was also suggested for what became Joplin Server) I am sure there would be far more hits relating to Scott Joplin ragtime syncopation than the transcription software. Furthermore with this example "Syncopation" does not really give any idea as to what the software does (it certainly doesn't syncopate!) and you would probably never be able to protect that name.
I suppose what I am saying is it may be better to resist the urge to be "clever" with the naming at the expense of being as simple and clear as possible, whilst being unique enough to be able to protect if necessary.
I know that it is rather boring but "Joplin Transcription Server" (or just "Joplin Transcribe") is plenty good enough for me!