Ganquan (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), a company mainly engaged in the production and sales of submersible electric pumps, had used photographic and written works such as completed engineering photos, as well as various charts for design, typesetting and arrangement, to compile the pamphlet named Full Tubular Submersible Pump in 2014, with an aim to facilitate potential users and design institutes to select products. 

All the above works are legally publicized, with Ganquan Group enjoying the exclusive copyright. Ganquan Group published the works involved by presenting them to users and design institutes and providing download links on the official website, but had later found that Tianhao Pump Company (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) plagiarized the above-mentioned works as its external distribution manual, and the company name on the pamphlet was also replaced by that of the defendant, who had also provided web browsing link to the public on its official website. Therefore, the plaintiff sued Tianhao Pump Company to the court.

One of the main controversial points in this case is whether the plaintiff's product brochure constitutes the work in the sense of Copyright Law.

The court deemed: the page design and overall arrangement of the product brochure had demonstrated the internal and external structures, performance curves, case photos, application example legends, etc. of the full-flow submersible pump series products, supplemented by text descriptions. In the aspects of content selection and arrangement, text description and product photo arrangement, graphic size ratio, color marking and so on, the author's originality is fully reflected, which presents a unique expression, and conforms to the characteristics of compilation works of copyright law and constitutes compilation works of legal significance. 

The first and second trials of this case held a unified view on the above determination, and finally ended with Ganquan Company winning the case.