Brands are often characterized as mediums of exchange between company and consumer, as “organisers of flows of goods, people, images and events” (Lury 2004). Indeed, the brand is a dominant aesthetic object of the contemporary global market. In light of the increasing politicization of the private sphere (Collier and Lakhoff 2005), brands have become useful indexes that permit the boycotting or even buycotting of specific lifestyles (Lewis and Potter 2013), acting as portable tools to perform an everyday ethical policing of the self and of others. In this paper I shall investigate an instance in which it is the police that directly intervenes in the public space by banning the logo, or as I argue the brand, of a particular Danish gang, LTF (Loyal to Familia). In Denmark, as in other countries, numerous public voices are preoccupied by the increase of radicalized youths, which demise public security. A common legislative approach to curb the movement and existence of violent gangs has been to seek out and incriminate “radical” signs rather than act on criminal acts and infringements (Standing 2006). However, paradoxically, such attempts at pre-emptively labelling youths as “radical”, often produce a counter effect. Indeed the very term radicalization is, if anything, the counterpart of a policy of securitization (Vigh & Jensen 2018: 19). What types of public performances are negated and/or enabled by the banning of a particular sign? What affects and materials are moved when it is the ministry of interior that arrests a certain type of dress? Moreover, what type of ideology is enacted when the state enacts an indexical policy? The paper expands the insights gained in cultural studies on brands and semiotics to the field of security studies and criminology.