I'd be worried about those fine areas filling in, especially from such a large solid or when it gets smaller.

Maybe try to get all the "leaves" travelling in the same direction?

I'd make the beak of the "r" a more explicit leaf, and no other part of it leafy.
And for the base font I'd use a contrasty sans, like Beorcana (but not Optima).

hhp

Good for you, Tom.

My questions are not about the type itself (which appears to be a pretty reasonable response to the brief, the other respondent's comments notwithstanding), but

1. What does the lettering look like in positive (black on white background) – is it strong enough to stand on it's own as a device?
Because
2. Why is the proportion of that enclosing leaf shape so large? If you take that backgound shape away, or make it radically smaller, what happens then?

Good luck with it.

The font Verve (http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/sooy/verve/) looks similar to what you have chosen, except it is more consistently thick. You could use Verve and change the dot in the "i" to be like the dot in the other.

Your logo will not work at small sizes because The type is sized so small in the shape that when the shape is made small the type will be MUCH smaller. The large shape doesn't do anything for me. If you use it make it smaller and strategically placed.

ben's comments are exactly what I was wondering. Imagine this on a label: the actual name is going to very tiny if it is locked into this shape.

If they're a new company, you really want to maximise the visibility and consistency of the name if you're going to build awareness.