As far as the word 'Hobbit' is concerned, we've just seen a recent case of a movie using the word Hobbit being effectively banned
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/20781777 Given that there was no connection between the movie & Tolkien's work other than the name Hobbit & that Tolkien didn't actually invent the name Hobbit I don't know what the lawyers, or the judge were up to with this one.
Since Tolkien's death the man & his life's work have moved increasingly towards becoming just as much a 'brand' as 'Disney' is. In place of the famous 'Disney' signature we have the JRRT monogram & the Estate & its lawyers are driven by nothing less than a desire to control everything to do with Tolkien.
The children's camp thing (let's not forget that proper names cannot be copyrighted - plus the fact that Rivendell is basically a compound of two standard, if slightly archaic, english words: riven=broken or split, dell=valley. Claiming you hold the copyright on riven+dell is about equivalent to claiming you own the copyright on foot+print & only a lawyer would try that one) was a thoroughly unpleasant act of legal thuggery. And preventing publication of the Hilary biography came across as a very shady misuse of copyright law because they weren't able to twist existing privacy laws to their purposes.
I do wonder whether there would be as much tolerance for the Estate's behaviour if it didn't include member's of Tolkien's immediate family. If it was made up of business people lawyering up at the slightest 'provocation' I wonder if people would still be so eager to see their side of things.
Interestingly, the author of the Mirkwood novel actually stood up to the Estates lawyers & took the case before a judge, who threw the case out & sent the Estates lawyers off with a flea in their ears (as we used to say). I suspect that most of the other cases would go the same way - if those being threatened were to stand up.