For a lot of the things you mention, one of the distinctions is that many of the foods were created by said ethicity, but adapted the cooking techniques and ingredients to the local pallet.

Edit: im not defending either side (i believe the chef is of japanese origin) its just there is a distinction between adapted foods and ones that arent.

I think there is an argument to be made for names being specific to products made in a certain place. The most prominent example I can think of is champagne being specific to the region in France. Lots of other alcohols, particularly spirits, such as Scotch and Irish whisky do this as well. I'm sure that most people don't actually care but for specialist products selling to people who do care I think it makes sense to reserve the label and just call the local imitation something else.

This is nonsense. Burgers are sold in damn near every country.

Except Americans will only call it a 'burger' if it's a beef patty and garnish on a burger bun. What we call a chicken burger, they call a chicken sandwich - which is ludicrous because a sandwich is something between two slices of bread, not two halves of a bun. Heck, the even call Subway's fare 'sandwiches'.