Government usage of what constitutes a trademark through its ability to deny them is an example of the biopolitics the affirmative endorses when promoting the strengthening of trademarks.

Assuming that they are the first to use it in commerce, trademark owners are entitled under common law to certain protections for their mark, including exclusive use of it in specific markets. There are, however, numerous benefits to federal registration of the mark, such as exclusive rights to the mark across the United States (as opposed to one region), as well as several advantages in litigation surrounding it (Anten, 2006, pp. 396–398). Registration is meant to be a fairly automatic process; most of the hurdles are procedural. The substantive hurdles are found in Section 2 of the Lanham Act, and include, for example, bans on trademarking official insignia of governmental entities or the identifying name, signature, or portrait of a living person without their consent. The statute also prohibits registration of a mark that: Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute. (15 USC 1052(a)) In denying registration to scandalous or disparaging material, the Lanham Act evidences a sense of public biopolitics. Independently of its viability in commerce, putting governmental imprimatur on a scandalous or disparaging mark is viewed as bad for the polity. In the case of disparaging marks, the idea is that the use of the mark would be damaging to those targeted by the mark in question. The First Amendment means that the government cannot stop such use, but it is also not required to reward it in commerce with the benefits of trademark registration, and so the policy explicitly values a vision of civil discourse over commercial benefit.