75It is clear, therefore, that the correction to the original version of the decision of 16 May 2007 concerned the very substance of that decision and in consequence cannot be construed as the correction of a clerical error. In that regard, it should be pointed out that a contradiction within the grounds of a decision relating to the question whether certain goods covered by the mark applied for and certain goods in respect of which the opponent’s mark was registered are similar can just as easily be resolved in favour of one side of the argument as the other. Likewise, a contradiction between the grounds of a decision and its operative part — arising from the fact that, while certain goods covered by the mark applied for and the goods covered by the opponent’s mark are not found to be similar, the opposition is nevertheless upheld as regards those goods — can also be resolved either by a finding that there is a certain degree of similarity between the goods in question or by the rejection of the opposition as regards those goods.