Such fictitious places appear in all derived (and original) maps, and is not by itself an indication of ripping off - it's only used as evidence when someone claims that their map is not copied. It will also show up for everyone who has legitimately acquired the map data.

In particulal, the original article mentions an acquisition path how most likely that map has made it's way legally to google.

No. At some point it became a real place name. Whether it is still interesting to show it on a map is another question.

In the case of the unnamed road it kind of makes sense. They named it, the name stuck. It's only fair, I think.