Beyond being familiar with the UDRP, it might be helpful to look at some actual decisions involving similar cases. Look at these search results:
Relevant passages from similar cases include:
"The domain name <info-space.com> is identical to Complainantís INFOSPACE trademark. The addition of a hyphen and .com are not distinguishing features."
"While the domain name gate-way.com is not identical to the complainantís trade marks GATEWAY or GATEWAY.COM, the only difference is the hyphen and this is insufficient to avoid confusing similarity. Evidence of lack of actual confusion is irrelevant since the test is confined to a consideration of the disputed domain name and the trademarks."
"The mere use of a hyphen "seek-america" in Respondents' domain name is insufficient to render it different to the service mark SEEKAMERICA."
So UDRP precedent would seem to indicate that you'd prevail at least as far as the "identical or confusingly similar" test goes. You'd also have to demonstrate registration in bad faith, and that the other party has no no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name.
Decisions can always go either way, and Frosty is posing a hypothetical case so it's hard to speak in absolutes. Generally, though, prospects would be good for winning a dispute in the kind of situation posted.