I am all pro regulating food names or designations. Usually when I buy food - especially item with a premium price - I'd like to get what I intneded to buy. If I am out to buy a Roquefort I really want that and not a Bleu d'Auvergne (cow instead of sheep) or any other nondescript "blue cheese". Now, if I get an "American Roquefort" made from raw sheeps milk, coagulated with the same rennet and inoculated with the same strain of Penicillium would it be the same ? Maybe. But riping would take place in another place, conditions may vary etc. We are used to like and pay dearly for specific wines from special places, specify the grape we like and the style. Nobody would question that buying a Chateauneuf du Pape should get you exactly what you pay for and not a wine made from the same grapes in the same style but from Napa Valley. It might be a fine wine but definitely not what you asked for. Nobody forbids you to use the decription "in the style of blahblah". Germans love Schnitzel, but they are usually made from pork and the "healthy" one from turkey. They are called "Vienna style" and the meat type is given as they are pounded, breaded and fried but nobody would call them "Vienna Schnitzel" as those ones are made from veal and fried in lard. Its a fair solution: you know what expect approximately, but are not cheated into investin into an orinial dish hen you just get a copy (which might be not inferior, mind you). So in conclusion: a proper (and maybe protected) name helps the customer to choose what he really wants. If someone wants to indicate what his products resembles using a phrase like "blahblah style" is from my perspective a fair solution to help the customer decide whether he wants the products or reaches out to get the original.