I think you are making it too complicated!
"Of whom/whose" would normally refer to a person, not a thing. The book called Manwatching was written by Jellison. No need for of whom or by whom:
If you are writing about a person, again there are much simpler ways to express the same thing. All you need to say is:
Michael Patterson is the manager.
Or maybe:
The manager's name is Michael Patterson.
Now the two example sentences you give are, I suppose, correct. You might see something like
After a long manhunt, we have finally apprehended the suspect, the name of whom is Michael Patterson.
So grammatically your examples are correct, but it is considered poor style to separate a subject from the verb by too many words. Note that in the "manhunt" example the clause is moved to the end, to avoid separating the subject from the verb.
Of the two patterns you suggest
The man, whose name was Michael, was the manager.
Is better. I've set off the middle clause with commas to help readers.
The students, whose names I don't remember, were all very smart.
Is better than using "of whom". Even so, I would still prefer:
The students were all very smart, but I don't remember their names.
English does allow for sentences to be expanded by inserting relative clauses in them. But its usually not a good style. You might look at the old nursery rhyme "The house that Jack built" to see what happens if you take this process too far.
They are grammatical, but they are not elegant. Stringing three possessives together as you do in your second example is particularly awkward.
I might say John is the father of my brother's friend. After all, "John" does not need to be identified as a name.
If, however, it is important to focus on the fact that "John" is merely a name, you could say The father of my brother's friend is named "John," not "Bill."
Best Answer
"The name of the boy" and "the boy's name" are both grammatical, and in many contexts have the same meaning. But not all. ("The name of boy" is not grammatical).
In most contexts, even formal or literary ones, we would say "The boy's name" rather than "the name of the boy".
So "The boy's name is Michael" is quite normal, and "The name of the boy is Michael" is a bit unusual, but perfectly understandable and grammatical.
But, oddly, your example doesn't quite work: "The boy's name is nice" is fine, but "The name of the boy is nice" sounds very odd to me. I can't quite define why, I'm afraid: I just expect "The name of the boy is" to be followed by the name, and nothing else.