Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Germans (these were separate titles actually) fought with the clergy of the investiture controversy.
As far as I know, you didn't have a King of Germans style for most of middle Ages. Pre-Ottonians styled themselves either King of Franks or, simply, Kings; or used the distinct title of King of the Romans which served more or less, either to a non-crowned (or pre-crowned) emperor, either for their labelled successors.
It's at the point "King of Germans" was used as a mockery for Henry IV, while "King of Italy" was regularily (while not systematicaly) used.
A detail, I know.
After being made Holy Roman Emperor, was there a way henry V could have gotten a win out of this?
It's not really a given either side (emperors or popes) could have really won the Investiture Controversy, which was a conflict that really eroded each other sides resources and capacities.
Now, by the time Henry V became emperor, the imperial side really wasn't in a favourable position to get a better deal out of the resolution, which is incidentally why the whole thing ended on his reign, and why Henry tried to end it with a compromise (Sutri Agreement) in the 1110's.
It didn't really worked on, because of the general hostility of German clergy, to not mention the hostility of german potentes against the emperor. See, the general motivation of Henry to increase the imperial authority did threatened both the whole idea of pontifical exclusivity, but as well the independence of German landed aristocracy, and more or less both ended to make an unformal alliance.
I suppose than an *Henry V with lesser ambitions could, arguably, abide by a Sutri-like compromise early on which does let the pontifical power more or less intact, if he doesn't antagonize his German potentes. That said, such Sutri-like compromise should definitely not override the episcopalian rights to regalian power (which mean the temporal and landed power of bishops that was issued from their status as royal counciliors).
I would rather like the opinion of
@Carp on this, but I wonder if we couldn't have a partial mediatisation of episcopalian regaliae into episcopalian-led secular lordships. It did happened IOTL eventually, but an earlier regulation may make things comparatively better for emperors.
But really, I do think that by the reign of Henry V, things went too far for anything than a less favourable deal for Rome (compared to IOTL results) in the solution of the crisis; as it would require to win over an unformal alliance between the clergy and the imperial potentes with the sole forces at his direct disposal.
Regarding what you proposes, I don't think it could work : it wasn't as much a matter of personal policies, would it be Pascal or Henry, but a matter of general political/ideological interest. You had a drive since the Xth to make the Roman church more autonomous from secular powers (amusingly partially due to Ottonian own efforts to be legitimized as emperors), and there was a point where using bishops as mere imperial administrators collided with the idea of Pontifical monarchy. Conveitrsly, the imperial legitimacy depended on its firm authority over potentes, secular or clerical (especially in the latter case, as Ottonian/Salian cesaropapist policies prooved), and could not really let the matter slide.
It's not even a matter of a civil war (altough a three-year civil war is a playing too softly giving the IOTL situation), but of dynastical, long-term ambitions and legitimity.