have known about Whole Foods’ use of the mark before December 2010. ERF insists that it did .not have actual knowledge of Whole Foods’ alleged infringement until early 2011, but constructive knowledge is enough to start the laches evaluation period. See, e.g., Internet Specialties, 559 F.3d at 990. On multiple occasions, we have held that laches barred an otherwise meritorious' trademark or copyright claim because the plaintiff had constructive knowledge of potentially infringing activity outside the limitation period. See, e.g., Evergreen, 697 F.3d at 1227 (“The fact that [the plaintiff] had the [defendant’s] draft manual in his possession in 1999, regardless of whether he actually read it, demonstrates that he should have known of the infringement [then].”); Miller, 454 F.3d at 999 (<HOLDING>); E-Systems, Inc. v. Monitek, Inc., 720 F.2d
holding that rookerfeldman did not bar the plaintiffs federal action where a pennsylvania state court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs petition for review of an agencys decision for failure to comply with the pennsylvania rules of appellate procedure since the extent of the plaintiffs compliance with those rules had no bearing on the merits of the plaintiffs constitutional claims holding that californias conclusion that sexual performances should not be offered where liquor is sold was not an irrational one holding that evidence that the utilities at a residence where heroin was sold were listed in defendants name that an army identification card bearing the defendants name and other papers belonging to the defendant were located in the same bedroom where heroin was found and that a sixteenyear old obtained heroin from the house and sold it at defendants direction was sufficient to have the jury consider whether the defendant possessed the heroin under a theory of constructive possession holding that plaintiffs had constructive knowledge of infringement where they were shareholders in the defendants organization the defendants had openly sold merchandise bearing the  mark at performances for years and one of the plaintiffs had attended performances where such merchandise was sold holding that defendants had no standing where they conceded that they did not own the automobile searched and were simply passengers the owner of the car had been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the search